The working class is taxed in tiers; the more you earn, the more you're taxed. Yet the wealthy pay a flat tax rate! The man who earns $1 million/year will pay the same rate as the man who earns ten or a hundred or a thousand times that salary, while the working Joes and Marys who earn pennies struggle to feed themselves and pay their bills. We debate raising minimum wage, but why not give the working class a very low flat tax rate and create tiered taxes among the wealthy?
What we have is the worst of both worlds: a tiered tax system for the working class and a flat tax with loopholes for the wealthy. Once again, the wealthy win.
trump has made it much worse for blue-collar labor. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer because of trump. What's next for the working class? trump will turn them into soylent green.
I believe in something simple. It's not fair that the wealthy needs to hire an accountant specialized in understanding the complicated rules within taxes and it isn't fair that if I make 60k I'm brought down through taxes to the same spending level as a Person living solely on welfare and section 8. I like the idea of a flat tax that puts people on the same playing field. I don't know all the ins and outs of it but from what I do know it sounds attractive.
44% of Americans get back everything they pay into for income taxes. 20% actually get back more and the top .1% pay 39.2% of all taxes. So what are you proposing that will not actually harm our tax base? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/8...l-income-taxes-this-year-heres-why-2018-04-16
I'm going to give an answer that's somewhere in the middle. It's moderately fair, not that bad but could be fundamentally better. When implementing tax ideas there are a lot of trade-offs to consider. "Fairness" is not the only factor. Most people do not think about that, or do not seem capable of doing so.
You're right poor "Blue Collar" workers having a job now, was much better when they were on Obama handouts. That's the way you enslave sorry build a country.
Overall, i.e., for all countries, it's probably better to have a flat income tax rate for all income above minimum wage and higher sales tax for various non-necessities.
Why? Is a regressive tax that hurts the poorest worst "fair"? As was already pointed out, fairness not being the only criteria, is it eqitable and sustainable? No, there HAS to be some point, when you'r e down to wealth that will never be used except to build more wealth where it SHOULD be taxed a bit more. If only because it REQUIRES a lot of infrastructure to run business that big, and money that big, made the easy way, by massive corporate interests bear some respobnsibility to shoulder the regulartory costs (and IDC how right wing you are, if your kids were poisoned because of deregulation you would be ALL for it instantly), the law enforcement protection businesss that big enjoy, al lot of things to be considered. It's just simple logic. The ultra wealthy in many ways rely even MORE on some government services to build and protect/sustain their empires, and it's not unfair to ask them to bear those costs, nor is it in any way "bad".
"Fair" is subjective. For example, a fair system would be one in which every individual over 25 years of age owes the federal government, say, $4000 per year. Everyone is taxed exactly the same. What could be more fair than that? That one person has to pay more than another is decidedly unfair.
No it isn't. When they have more, because tyou built it on society's infrastructure, protected it with society's laws and law enforcement agencies, fire agencies, construction inspectors that makes sure your homes and business building are safe, with all of society's institutions behind you, then your argument gets very silly and looks incredibly naive with a quickness. I mean you have all that nice stuff (assuming you are wealthy enough) and much of it with society (gov'mint) help and support, why should the guy who can barely afford rent and to feed himself pay same as you? He sure got less from govvermnet, has less to give, has FAR less support from the institutions his taxes pay, and it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't work hard either. He took less from government and gets less, assuming he's not on some welfare program. So how is it right you get so much more, had so much more help bulilding what you have, bu he owes the same? Sounds like YOU getting welfare from him don't it?
My opinion on fairness, but based on the actual facts. The wealthy rely more on government services than the poor, assuming, said poor are not on assistance programs (and sometimes even if they are). Further, try seeing how much the police do for an entry level factory worker barely making it whose car is stolen vs. the service the lawyer with three cars and two bikes and a boat who loses one. It maay be opinion about "fairness" but as far as who pays whow much and what they get for the money and what they enjoyed all along getting there, and it's not equitable at all and that's not really something you can just argue away.
My idea of fair is everyone being treated the same. Your idea of fair is everyone being treated differently. Go figure.
No tax system is fair. It doesn't matter anyway. What matters is that a tax system maximize the prosperity to the working class, or at least minimize its harm to that prosperity.
A universal flat income tax with all citizens treated equally is the only fair tax system. Somebody making $10,000 should pay the same rate as somebody making $100,000,000.
Should be flat rate for everyone. nb4 'but the wealthy should pay more!': agreed, they should pay more than they do. eliminating the loopholes inherent in a complicated system will cause them to pay a lot more. everyone paying the same rate no matter what (including corporations) will prevent the top tiers like GE and Amazon from generally avoiding taxation.
That is some amazing stuff there, thank you for sharing your wisdom. You will quickly come to understand that every post on this forum is moot. No one will change their minds, regardless of how bad you talk about them/others. I will tell you that your rant made me smile though. And treating everyone the same is fair.
Which a progressive scaled system does arguably. If the poor guy moves up, uses more, gets more, he pays more. If the rich guy gets ruined, less tax burden. I never expected to change your mind, but the absolute fact is it's more complicated than you factor or account for. Period.
The top 1% earn only 20% of wages, yet pay about 40% of all tax collected. Almost half of those in the bottom 99% who file, pay no tax at all. Seems that we already have what the folks who want to punish success want. The only fair tax is the FairTax. We should not be taxing income at all.
I appreciate the marked contrast in your demeanor in this post versus your previous posts. I agree with you that a progressive system can be deemed fair. Of course, a flat tax rate for all can be considered fair too. And the system I mentioned is fair. It all depends on one's philosophy of "fair." I think where one's concept of "fair" might fail is when it is based predominantly on jealousy or "getting even" or "I am entitled to..."
