Liberal free for all coming to an end

[GRH]

I don't have time for a long thoughtful reply...But Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government. Well hello...It's because the top 10% own 80% of the nation's wealth. The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/in...eater_tax_debt

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax. But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).

[randolph]

Although the "flat tax" is deemed regressive, in actual practice is it really? The wealthy have many ways of minimizing or eliminating their taxes that are unavailable to the lower incomes. I suspect a flat tax would vastly simplify the tax system and provide more income for the government. Everybody should support the government.
Eliminating the sales tax, which hurts low income people, would stimulate the economy and compensate somewhat for the flat income tax.
Yeah, I know, there are plenty of arguments against this.

[GRH]

There's another thing that a LOT of people seem to have a misconception about regarding our "progressive" tax system. Some people seem to be under the impression that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of tax on ALL of their earnings and this is simply not the case. The fact is, everyone's first dollar's of earnings are taxed exactly the same as everyone else's. Up until the first marginal tax bracket, EVERYONE (wealthy and poor alike) are taxed at 10%. Then going up to the next income tax bracket, the earnings between the first and third tax bracket are taxed at 15%.

I think the right like to play a sympathy game as if the "poor", overtaxed wealthy of this country pay 35% on ALL of their earnings. The fact is, for a couple filing jointly, those 35% tax rates don't kick in except on earnings in excess of $250,000. The earnings up to that threshhold are taxed at lower rates. The wealthy would like you to believe that if they make $251,000 a year that they pay $87,850 in taxes (taxing ALL earnings at 35%). The fact is, only the $1,000 (in excess of the $250,000) is taxed at 35%.

And of course, this doesn't even begin to take into account all the deductions and favored tax rates. Yes, some people end up paying no income taxes at all thanks to all the credits and deductions available. And let's not forget that capital gains and dividends are taxed at only 15%...A major source of income for the wealthy. As a result, the EFFECTIVE tax rate that America's wealthiest pay (on total income) is in many cases lower than the income taxes paid by some of our middle class Americans.

[transjen]

I hate to burst everyones bubble but there is really no such thing as a fair tax system cause no matter the system there will be special loopholes favoring one group over everyone else inserted in or added later
Also keep in mind that no matter how many times the GOP scream about the tax and spend DEMS let us not forget that the GOP spend tax dollars just as quick the only difference is they feel the upper two percent shouldn't have to pay taxes only the poor and lower middle class should pay all the taxes
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Also keep in mind that no matter how many times the GOP scream about the tax and spend DEMS let us not forget that the GOP spend tax dollars just as quick

Are you talking about GOP administrations with or without democrat congresses? And are you comparing them to democrat administrations with or without GOP congresses?

[TracyCoxx]

From Congressman Joe Walsh to Obama: Quit Lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuW...layer_embedded

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

From Congressman Joe Walsh to Obama: Quit Lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuW...layer_embedded

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes for genuine discourse in the minds of many of the so-called Tea Party members of Congress and, unfortunately, at least one regular poster on this Forum.

[TracyCoxx]

So anyway...

Originally Posted by GRH

Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government.

I don't have a problem with that exactly. If there was a flat tax at 17%, someone who makes $100 million/yr would have a $17 million tax bill. If someone made $10000/yr then they would have a $1700 tax bill. The richer person still shoulders a much larger share of funding the government.

Originally Posted by GRH

The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?

This has nothing to do with some 3rd world country. This is about how the rich vs poor in America are taxed.

Originally Posted by GRH

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax.

LOL awesome. You are actually claiming that flat tax is not flat tax. You have violated perhaps the most fundamental axiom: the reflexive axiom and claimed that A is not A. If you're going to call flat tax regressive tax, then what to you call something that is truly by definition regressive tax? The classic trademark of liberals is to water down words with alternate meanings. You and your Kinetic Military Actions, Man Caused Disasters and Deferred Successes.

Originally Posted by GRH

But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).

I'm no expert on economics, but that's referred to as "Fair Tax", and as you say another example of a flat tax system. There's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and again, the elimination of the IRS.