The rich get richer and everyone else works harder for less money. You're sacrificing the best hours of your day and the best days of your life to make the 1% even richer.
That means most people are going to pay much more in taxes. 12% for some one that brings in 25k a year impacts them much more when normally they get back all the money they pay in taxes. While we would make a massive amount more in tax income we would be harming the poorest and most vulnerable among us. Is that such a good idea?
"Do You Think Our Tax System Is Fair?" the rich pay less per dollar they earn then the middle class, so no, its not a fair system
Everyone has the exact same opportunity to use the tax laws to benefit them. It's nobody's fault some can't be bothered to understand how they can reduce their taxable income.
Then the poorest pay no federal tax at all. It simply doesn't come out of their paycheck at any point. Simple.
Thats why the rich can afford to pay higher taxes to help pay for universal healthcare and keep social security afloat.
A regressive tax does not hurt the poor or even the rich but it hurts the middle class, and that's bad news if the goal of many poor people is to become part of the middle class. And the fact that you refer to businesses that require infrastructure and other gov't services shows that you should not focus on income tax but on corporate tax.
Here's another way of looking at the issue, and on a global scale. According to various UN HDR reports, the 200 richest people worldwide have more wealth than the bottom third of the world's population. That means if those 200 people (take note: not 200 million or 200,000 but 200 out of more than 7 billion) were to give up a fraction (say, 10 pct) of their wealth, the amount will be enough to cover basic needs of the world's population. Now, some will nitpick and argue that it's not 200 but 20,000, and the fraction should be higher (say, 25 pct), but it doesn't matter because the number of people is still small and the fraction remains small. Why? Because their wealth goes up by that fraction every three to five years mainly through financial speculation. How irrelevant is that amount to be given up for them? They probably spend a few million dollars a year for their personal entertainment, which is loose change compared to their total wealth. Even better, that amount used to cover basic needs will be used to pay for goods and services from businesses owned by the same wealthy people, which means whatever they gave up goes back to them through profits earned from increased sales.
A flat tax of zero percent until one rises above the poverty line is necessary though to make our existing system more fair!
Graduated income tax for the lower levels, while no taxation via donations (charitable givings) for the upper. Yep, Capitalism at its finest. Was Larry Abraham stated in "None Dare Call It Conspiracy", "Capitalism is Communism for the wealthy."
A progressive rate tax system is part of the communist manifesto. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm I'm a 100% flat taxer with few deductions,and elimination of gov't run social welfare.
We already have that. The 2018 poverty level is $12140. for an individual. The personal exemption is $12000 thanx to Trump's tax reform PLUS at that level you get free or nearly free medical care thru barrycare or Medicaid. https://aspe.hhs.gov/2018-poverty-guidelines
The U. S. Tax Code is the most wretched, vile, thoroughly corrupted thing I know of. It is stuffed FULL of dozens of ways that the rich can avoid paying anything even close to being a "fair share". It needs to be stripped of all of these loopholes, shelters, exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and "carried interest". Until it is, it will NEVER be fair!
But... it is also necessary for the President and Congress to use the power to create money in such a way that a ridiculous tax burden is not put on citizens! https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/politics/item/abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy This is actually an astonishingly simple mathematical problem related to Compound Interest over Time.... but very few want to write or talk about it! I put it or something related to this into all four of my previous campaigns: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...016-and-2004-campaign-writings-as-art.534297/ When well trained workers have high quality technology to work with then the total of all wages and benefits paid out to employees is only a fraction of the retail value of the products they produce. As a result of this fact the only way to move products out of warehouses is to extend higher and higher levels of credit. One problem with an abundance of red ink is that compound interest on all this government, business and personal debt over a period of decades will grow to astronomical levels. At this time there is approximately TEN TIMES as much debt in Canada as there is money. A simple explanation for how this happened can be seen here: The Public-Debt Problem In my opinion this rather simple mathematical problem is perhaps the number one cause of inflation in the Canadian economy over the past three decades. This is also perhaps the number one reason why our costs of production are so high and Canadian products cannot compete on the world markets as well as they could under better conditions. From 1940 to 1974 the Government of Canada put roughly half of the total money supply into the economy through loans issued through the federally owned Bank of Canada. Provincial and municipal governments could borrow the money to build roads, schools, hospitals and sewage treatment facilities at zero or one percent interest. In 1974 we changed our system and since that time a higher and higher percentage of all government debt is financed through loans issued through privately owned banks. At this time it is ninety eight percent. This policy may be great for our banking sector but it was estimated that in the one year of 1995 alone our federal government could have saved roughly SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments if we had gone back to creating half the total money supply through these low interest rate loans issued through the bank that is OWNED BY ALL CANADIANS. Considering that our deficit was approximately thirty billion dollars for that year, simply by changing back to an already proven monetary and banking system, we could theoretically have had a FEDERAL BUDGET SURPLUS OF THIRTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in 1995. The massive cutbacks in the Canadian military, in health care, highway construction, social programs and education were profoundly affected by these accounting practices?
Even if we assume that the current tax system is unfair, and we succeed in going about getting the system changed, I'm not at all confident that the new system will be more fair than the one before.
Now your adding loopholes. I'm not for that. If you make little, you pay little with a flat tax. You don't have to worry. And you would feel like you are contributing. No one can say you aren't trying.
Both Canada and America already have the loopholes to prevent the working poor from paying income tax..... if this loophole is not factored into the equation...... a flat tax would never be accepted by voters.
No not fair. Everyone should be paying the same percentage of their income. Should be no exemptions for kids But spending is the real problem not taxes. We need a massive cut in spending across the board and we need to not spend more than tax revenue provides.
I agree with you. Also, I would change the tax law so that anybody on Social Security wouldn't have any of their SS money taxed.