Taxpayer involvement of Nashville park unclear

Honestly, I wouldn't have any problem with a flat tax for anyone making 20K or above (obviously, households have to adjust for family size). I do think it's a bit Dickensian to ask someone making minimum wage to pay 25% of nothing to the givernment....are we that poor and mean-spirited, when so many have several mansions (and accounts in multiple tax havens)?

Oh, and when I say "flat tax", that mean you can take your deductions and shove 'em....you're PAYING the 15-18%, period.

Oh, and when I say "flat tax", that mean you can take your deductions and shove 'em....you're PAYING the 15-18%, period.

I agree. The world must be ending tomorrow. :)

Though I'd still prefer a sales tax versus an income tax...but that is another argument.

I do think it's a bit Dickensian to ask someone making minimum wage to pay 25% of nothing to the givernment....are we that poor and mean-spirited, when so many have several mansions (and accounts in multiple tax havens)?

I might be Dickensian enough to ask 5%...so they have skin in the game.

For the record gator...in many forums your opinions on tax policy might be seen as extreme right. ;) A flat tax, regardless of form, is like kryptonite to a lot on the left.

Why is a flat tax more "progressive" than what we currently have in place? Seems crazy, right? Why would some left-wing nutjob such as myself propose such insanity? Having everyone pay the same? But our current tax code has higher rates at higher income levels now, right?

As Coach Corso is so fond of saying, "not so fast, my friend".

http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/2012/measure/tax-burden-by-income

Why is a flat tax more "progressive" than what we currently have in place? Seems crazy, right? Why would some left-wing nutjob such as myself propose such insanity? Having everyone pay the same? But our current tax code has higher rates at higher income levels now, right?

As Coach Corso is so fond of saying, "not so fast, my friend".

http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/2012/measure/tax-burden-by-income

Remember when Steve Forbes ran on a Flat Tax campaign?

Made sense to me then and it still does now.

And regarding the chart you linked to, I just want to point out that it's a list of what people pay in state and local taxes, not federal. (not that it makes a difference so much, but I still feel like the conversation was mostly discussing issues at the federal level)

I'm not rich, but I do OK. The more OK I do, the lower my effective tax rate gets. Why? Because there are more places I can put money that it doesn't get taxed, including my mortgage interest, 401k, IRA, charitable contributions, etc. It's not just federal income tax, either. FICA and SS payroll taxes are capped, so the more you make over the cap, the less your effective rate becomes.

LG -- It does make a difference though in that certain state and local taxes are known to be regressive (or at least not progressive). So I don't think its accurate to use the regressive nature of overall state and local taxes as evidence that taxes which supposedly are progressive are not progressive and thus we should have a flat tax. Federal income taxes actually are progressive when you look at what various income levels pay as a group though it may not be the case in certain individual situations. As a result of that, I don't see us making any changes to the federal income tax system to implement a flat tax (unless there were multiple tax rates that were progressive). In addition, politicians like to bribe us to do different things, avoid doing other things and reward contributors with tax deductions/breaks. And various industries/organizations are all about lobbying for special deductions that will help them.

As an aside, where did they get the info for that chart? How do they know what various people pay in taxes? When you buy something and pay sales taxes, no one asks for your income. Does the county know my income with respect to the real estate taxes that I pay?

Out of curiousity, do you believe that's right or wrong, Jeff?

Man taxed at 102%

And if you read through it, it touches on exactly what I was getting at in the very first page of this thread about entrepreneurs and who we should be giving breaks and/or help to.

Seems like many of the people actually contributing are given the least incentive to do so.

At any rate, I like the summary that the final paragraph of the article gives:

The tax code, Dr. Rivero wrote, “is written to favor the rich, who have not created all those jobs they were supposed to generate.” The rich themselves are some of the most distressed. “None of the dialogue about taxes has anything to do with fairness,” Mr. Ross lamented. “Certain rich people are paying way more their fair share and other rich people are paying a lot less. I’d like to see a conversation take place along nonideological lines where everyone is asked to pay their fair share, where everyone makes some payment, even if it’s one dollar. Everyone I know is so disgusted. People aren’t stupid. They know what’s going on. At the end of the day, the system is broken.”

I’d like to see a conversation take place along nonideological lines where everyone is asked to pay their fair share, where everyone makes some payment, even if it’s one dollar. Everyone I know is so disgusted. People aren’t stupid. They know what’s going on. At the end of the day, the system is broken.”

This is what I've been trying to say. Now...one dollar is a lot lower than I would suggest, but the premise is what I'm getting at. I want a FAIR share for everybody. Not exemptions for the rich (Jeff talked about) or nothing for the poor. A nice, even consistent tax policy.

I still think a national sales tax of Fair Tax type system is the best way to reach that goal. But any movement toward a more FAIR system is what I'm for.

The most recent link was a little confusing unless you look closely at what each person was referencing. Some were looking at their total tax rates based on taxable income (presumably federal taxable income and then looking at total local, state, property, sales, etc. taxes that they pay). Others were looking at adjusted gross income (again presumably federal AGI). Some at actual income (without any adjustments/deductions) to determine effective tax rates. You can get very different results for any individual and then comparing different people using different definitions of effective tax rates.

Lord Gonchar said:
Out of curiousity, do you believe that's right or wrong, Jeff?

I'm not entirely sure. While the various "tax efficient" means are intended to encourage spending and investment, that's harder to do if you don't have high earning potential. I hate to say that I want to pay more taxes, but having a lower percentage compared to those who make far less is probably not moral.

Viewing it from a moral stand point, there is no requirement that anyone maximize deductions or even take any at all.

The most "moral" system is a Fair Tax...sales tax type system that catches ALL spending. The rich, or big spenders would still pay more.

Isn't that the moral deficit in the current system? First, a lot of the filthy rich don't make a lot of "income" as defined for the IRS. Stock options, capital gains, etc are a tried and true means of keeping the tax man away. Second, the deductions Jeff is talking about are irrelevant in a sales tax system.

Now I define "moral" as FAIR for everybody. If you definition of "moral" includes the government being able to manipulate behavior by changing tax policy/rates/etc...I do not consider that "moral." I believe freedom is "moral." I don't believe that an authoritative body manipulating behaviors through legalized stealing is "moral."

We the people have allowed our government to behave immorally for too long. This is evidenced by the fact that the government's manipulative tax policies has given us a system where as of 2009, 46% of the population contributes nothing.

The "moral" thing to do is scrap the entire immoral system and replace it with something else.

P.S. This assumes you are just looking at it from a "moral" stand-point.

I do not believe everyone could agree on what is "fair" or "moral" anymore than they could agree on what religious grounds, if any, those decisions should be made.

Oh, and I really need to continue to argue against this idea that "if 50% of the people are paying 4% of the taxes, that means 46% contribute nothing." The math behind the numbers shows that many people IN the bottom 50% actually pay a smaller smaller portion spread out among many people. They may not pay as much as some would like, but then again I'm sure they don't earn as much as THEY would like, either.

Sales tax is certainly not any more fair. The more money I have, the more crap I can buy, so I pay more. At the other end, poor people have to pay it on basics they need to survive, or even comply with the law (seeing as you have to buy clothes, because being naked in public is not legal). That's hardly a better option..

Sales tax is highly regressive by nature. Poor people spend a much greater percentage of their meager income on purchases than the rich, and so actually pay a higher net percentage of their income on such taxes.

The more money I have, the more crap I can buy, so I pay more. At the other end, poor people have to pay it on basics they need to survive, or even comply with the law (seeing as you have to buy clothes, because being naked in public is not legal). That's hardly a better option..

Sales tax is highly regressive by nature. Poor people spend a much greater percentage of their meager income on purchases than the rich, and so actually pay a higher net percentage of their income on such taxes.

These are typical rebuttals to the FairTax. But if you take the time to read and understand the bill, you realize that those concerns are addressed and invalidated.

Under the FairTax Plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

GoBucks89 said:
Viewing it from a moral stand point, there is no requirement that anyone maximize deductions or even take any at all.

Exactly. I have said this to a few people complaining about our need for more tax revenue. Gross income minus standard deduction times applicable tax rate equals tax bill. Simple math, and it would put more money in the government coffers. But I guess itemized deductions and credits are bad only when someone else gets to take them.