This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore AnnieMo. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
LMAO...Cher, you are a funny person. "A ploy initiated by the rich who can hide their income"? Are you for real?
Ok, I'll just lump you in with that other person who replied senselessly earlier.
I'm NOT rich. On the contrary, my income is right at the national median. For the past several years, when all is said and done after I do my taxes, the Feds have kept what amounted to aproximately 5% of my income as federal income tax. That means, that for me at least, A 10% FLAT TAX WOULD BE A TAX INCREASE!!! Yes, I would love if that where the case.
I would put EVERYONE "into the game". Everyone in the US who had income would be interested in the government spending the taxes they paid more smartly!
What a concept!!!
Although I appreciate your sincerity, I doubt that a 10% tax for someone making $ 35,000 a year is going to feel the same that someone making $35 million would, and it would hardly be fair...a person making $35 or even $45 grand is not going to use the even a fraction of the infrastructure that tax dollars pay for that someone making 35 Million would. The wouldn't be flying as much (if at all) , using the airports, their driving would probably be limited to back and forth to work and MAYBE a vacation by car once a year. Every dollar you earn (or inherit) gives you more and more access to increase your scope of travel, your shopping (many shopping malls are built with tax increment financing) , the number of cars, boats, planes, and houses you own- intertainment venues like municpal music halls, concert arenas, sports arenas, theater, all which increase the usage of the things tax dollars pay for...so why should someone who has that increased ability to use/abuse all those things not pay higher taxes? Many lower income people cannot afford to even purchase tickets for their own use in those places tax payer dollars provide (note the rise in football and basketball tickets for the major leagues which are privately owned but proform in taxpayer funded fields).
Then I look at the way the tax code is written. My lawyer said even lawyers have trouble with it ! It has loopholes for the upper income bracket that no one in the lower income brackets could ever make use of-those laws are designed for ways only the upper levels of wealth can use them..and that's why there are lawyers who do nothing but tax law and are always on the payroll of the very wealthy. Warren Buffet stated his secretary paid more taxes than he did, because of all the loopholes in the tax laws. Is that fair? No. And a 10% flat tax isn't either for the same reason. A secretary would still be paying more of her income she has to live on to make ends meet than it would take from Warren Buffet to live on and make ends meet, under a flat tax. That picture the flat tax argument makes based on this reality makes me laugh at how rediculous it is! And she still would not be able to make use of the many things her taxes have gone to pay for-while Buffett has the means to enjoy them all.
Flat tax probably would not hurt those making $75,000 and up-if they are single or not raising a family. Somehow, I don't see a flat tax that doesn't hurt only one segment, while making a bonanza for the wealthy and a hardship for the poor a good solution. If you look at the Census Bureau and IRS charts on the history of US tax levels since 1913, the areas where the upper bracket paid over 70% (and even up to 95%) were areas in our history that they were making more money while the economy of the whole country prospered.
Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
THE THREE GREAT TAX CUTS: BOOM, BUBBLE, CRASH
During World War One the top marginal tax rate went up to 73%. Not the highest ever, but pretty high.
In 1922, a series of rate cuts began. Down to 56%, 46%, and finally, in 1925, it went down to 25%.
The stock market took off. There was a boom. But the boom was a bubble.
It was followed by the Great Crash of 1929.
There were bank failures and the Great Depression.
From Franklin Roosevelt's second term all the way through to Jimmy Carter, - from 1936 until 1982 - the top rate was in the 70-92% range. After WW2, there was an era of economic prosperity. Together with the GI Bill and the boom in manufacturing, the level of income for the vast majority of Americans was better than it had ever been. College and techinical school enrollment continued to climb through the 50's and 60's 70's and 80's. The middle income class continued to expand in all areas of employment and fields across the country while the top level of middle income grew upward..... until beginning in the early 80's....college graduates found it harder and harder to find a job because-
Then along came Reagan in 1981.
In 1982 he cut the taxes for the upper bracket down from 70%to 50%.Regulations covering banking and savings and loans was also cut away.
The economy went into "the worst recession since the Great Depression."
His supporters argued that it was all Carter's fault and that the new policies would take time to work. The tax cuts stayed in place. In 1987, there was another round of tax cuts. They took the top rate down to 38.5%. It would stimulate the economy!
There was a boom. But it was a bubble.
Then, in October, 1987, there was a crash. The worst since '29. It was called Black Monday.
Much of the bubble money had gone into - ohmigod! -real estate.
Suddenly there were bank failures! More than during the Great Depression. There was a Savings & Loans crisis! There had to be a bailout (which we are still paying for.)
3. BUSH II
George Bush came into office with the healthiest, post powerful economy in American history. The Previous deficit was almost completely paid off, unemployment rates were way down and businesses were booming. Neighborhoods that had been on the poverty level saw houses that were being repaired, painted, the inhabitants were making improvments and the neighborhoods were looking spiffier.
Bush immediately cut taxes. The top marginal rate went down from 39% to 35%. He also cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. A recession immediately ensued. But he persisted.
Eventually, the economy began to grow.
Employment didn't grow very much. Median income went down. The stock market was pretty flat. But the financial sector - and only the sector - grew.
Which should have made it obvious to someone, that it was ... a bubble.
There was a crash.
Bank failures. A bailout.
The three worst economic disasters in American history follow the exact, same pattern. Tax cuts, boom, bubble, crash.