Bushit wants to eliminate the IRS....What is the best tax rate?

[serryjw]

Since the wealthy hardly pay any tax at all with all their write offs..I would like to see 20% Federal Tax for EVERYONE with no exemption.....F*ck the IRS and all this tax mumbo-jumbo...most of the country freaks out near 4/15...Its a waste of time and energy

[Capn Sunshine]

1. I really like the idea of a consumption tax

pay as you go and all that. Of course, this at some point becomes regressive, as everyone pays the same rate so the poor end up paying a higher percentage of their wages in sales tax. But It can't be worse than it is now. The only question is whether it would create an underground economy larger than the one we currently have.

[dumpster_baby]

4. let me guess--you are rich.... n/t

[elsiesummers]

7. As long as corporations have the same (ie-20%) tax rate, it could work.

Fat chance of that happening, though.

Would think 25% to 30% more realistic - even higher if this is to cover municipalities.

[Carla in Ca]

2. rumor has it that

his new tax plan would include no longer being able to deduct home mortgage interest! If he's not toast, we are!

[dumpster_baby]

3. i say tax the hell out of the rich-- top tax rate of 70%

single People who earn under 20K pay NOTHING.

Eliminate the payroll completely. Just use an income tax that increases with income. It starts out with $20K and below making zero, and increases gradually with a top tax rate of 70%, which would probably kick in at an income of several million a year.

Pretty simple, huh?

[serryjw]

5. In theory that would be great BUT

They have a way of delaying income that we don't...It never worked before and it wouldn't work now to over tax the wealthy...BUT If we had a national consumption tax it could be fair IF. The weathy can just stop buying the luxuries and IT'S US WHOM ARE LAYED OFF due to a slow down in sales/profits.

1) No tax on Food or
2) no tax on housing or
3) NO tax utilities

Most working poor SURVIVE. They do very little else. As your income goes up, so does the spending on goodies.....so why should they not be taxed

The major benefit to a National consumption tax is will finally tax the cash underground economy. Billions of dollars are made in the US every year and these people are under the radar. All the drug money is never taxed. We would finally feel the benefits of it. No One makes a ton of money and lives in a survival economy

If it was a fair consumption tax rate, that the wealthy would pay it would bring MORE money into the Feds

[MadProphetMargin]

6. Why do you hate the working class?

Why?

[dumpster_baby]

9. It is not that he/she hates the working class

It is just that this person has never had to worry about the future (i.e., born rich, or comfortable, well off etc), or has not yet lived long enough to understand what life really is. This person may be a young person who thinks life will always be as it has been so far. Or this person has resources that buffer him/her from life's vagaries.

[punpirate]

8. Don't be deceived by...

... the suggestion of simplicity.

Flat taxes are, by definition, regressive. Sales taxes are even more so (and this is why the Repugs have been pushing so hard for them).

The object in "getting rid of" the IRS, as Bush puts it, is to get rid of taxation on corporations and further reduce the taxes paid by the wealthy, and to further starve social programs.

Do some math some time at what you think a reasonable flat rate might be, and see how much that generates in taxes. With nothing progressive in the system, one can use the average income in the country to pretty closely estimate total taxes.

Right now, the average wage (that includes all the highs and the lows) is around $28K/yr. There are about 130 million wage earners. Let's say 15% sounds reasonable. Pretty simple formula. That comes out to $546 billion per year. This year, that's enough to pay for the defense budget, the intelligence services budgets and the extras for the Iraq war, and nothing else.

Keep in mind that the deficits of the last few years, created by tax cuts for the wealthy, have dramatically increased the debt and the interest which must be paid to prevent the country from defaulting on its debts. Near the end of the Clinton years, that interest payment was around $170-180 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, that interest is very close to $330 billion. So, just to pay for all defense-related items and the debt actually requires a flat rate of 24%.

Think the difference should be made up by corporations? Don't count on it. Right now, 60% of corporations pay no taxes. Future Repug legislation will be attempting to further decrease taxation on corporations, so don't count on them to pull the load.

And, what happens when federal revenues drop this precipitously? Local and state taxes rise to make up the difference. Sales taxes (also very regressive) go up dramatically, and even more dramatically in those states which have artificial caps on property tax increases. States currently with no state income tax will have to create them.

One can predict the consequences of such a plan. Sharp increases in the number of poor, particularly the working poor. Degradation of services at all levels of government. Much higher unemployment. A dramatic increase in the individual costs of health care and ill health. A progressive slowdown in the economy because of the absence of federal and state pump-priming funds.

What you would have, in a very short space of time, is the world's biggest banana republic, overloaded with defense spending and debt.

Who benefits by such a plan? Only the wealthy (which includes corporations). And the wealthy are telling you how much simpler life would be if there were no IRS and we all just had a simple flat tax?

By contrast, were that "complicated" tax code returned to a less complicated code similar to that in effect in, say, the Kennedy administration, when the top nominal rate on the wealthy was 77%, there was stiff taxation on short-term capital gains and corporations paid approximately 35% of total tax load, and with an 80% tax on excess war profits, the federal government would be debt free in about eight to ten years, eventually saving upwards of a trillion dollars in interest payments and allowing an increase in services (such as universal health care).

Do you know who first said that progressive taxation and democracy were intimately linked? Thomas Jefferson, in about 1807. If Jefferson is right, destruction of the progressive tax system means what for modern democracy?

Cheers.

[serryjw]

10. Read about it in detail......

then tell me it's a bad idea........This will never hurt the working poor. I stillbelive it is the best way based on the bill that was introduced
http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/FairTax%20and%20Mortgage%20Cost%20Reductions.pdf

[punpirate]

12. Believe, if you will...

... but, it's a guaranteed disaster in the making.

Here's another analysis (based on the Armey bill, which is continuing to be proposed in Congress, with minor variations):

http://www.ctj.org/html/flatdstr.htm

I have looked at fairtax.org's arguments, and there's plenty of smoke and mirrors in it.

Now, there's an old expression in politics. In every bill, look for the one-eyed, bearded man with a limp. Meaning, who does the bill truly benefit? In this case, it's clearly the rich and the right wing, who want to defund the government.

If you want a much less biased view of virtually all of the tax proposals out there now, go to the Center for Tax Justice:

http://www.ctj.org

But, I stand by my original assessment. Flat taxes are intended to accomplish two things--make the rich even richer, and to defund as much of the federal government as possible, with the exclusion of defense, which has been an aim of the right wing ever since the New Deal.

Flat tax plans are being sold to you as making your life simpler. If you believe that, I have some swamp land in Florida you'd just love.

Cheers.

[Festivito]

13. Yes, and beyond the load lies the unfairness of benefits.

Benefits we all do not share. So, while a neighbor can have health care, retirement, vactions, offices, accountants, and a host of insurances -- all free -- another person has to pay the same percentage and RECIEVE NONE OF THESE?

Under a flat tax the two may earn the same, but one really earns much more and thus the one who makes more pays lower effective percentage.

So, would they tax based on income plus benfits? Then am I taxed on benefits over which I have no control?

And, will FICA/SS/MC become flat all the way up the pay scale? The rich benefit from disabled people having a safety net where the rich can pay less than 2% as the under-a-hundred-thousanders pay over 15%.

THIS IS CLASS WARFARE!

on edit, I need glasses. One thing to miss the percent key, another to not see it's a dollar sign.

[punpirate]

14. It's class warfare, all right...

... and the rich are winning, as Molly Ivins says.

[doctorus]

11. tax rates

to declare equal tax rates for everyone does not mean to have them really

[Hekate]

15. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society

That's first and foremost. I don't mind paying my taxes to support social programs, public education, public works. I mind very much that over half of what I pay in goes to the military one way or another.

As for Bush's plan, as with any of his plans, ask this question -- Who does it serve?

And if you're unclear about the answer, ask this -- Who do his plans usually serve?

Uh huh.

Keep this in mind: Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Bill Frist, Karl Rove, and all their dear friends want to destroy the federal government. I believe the vivid expression is that they want to reduce it to a small enough size to drown it in a bathtub and then pull the plug. Where does that leave social programs, public education, public works, Social Security ...?

Taxes are too complicated, but before leaping at the simplicity of this idea consider how simple some of Bush's other ideas have been and how well they've turned out. Who does it serve?

Hekate

[izzie]

16. With a Bush in DC maybe States running their own business would----

be better.The money would stay nearer to the people who pay it. We would not have the rich states giving money to the poor states. I used to think the Feds could do thing more fair but maybe more fair is not what is good.Let a state like Tex fill it self up with dirty water and let Maine keeps its clean. We could then sue NH if they dirty the rivers that come over the state line. You people do not recall the poor blacks that were sent to Ma from the South. It was an interesting time. I really think we are sort of going this way with Bush. Only the power of all that money he can spend is getting to him. A boy with his own army is not a good thing. Lets keep him in his bubble and take back our country. Only trouble is he is drunk with this power and money now. Rich may not have to pay taxes but workers will.