And I mean flat across the board. Everybody pays 5%, for example. But to make sure everybody pays that 5%, no exemptions for yourself or dependents. Not deductions for work, charitable donations, etc. No deductions for business losses. Capital gains are considered income and taxed at the same rate. So you bought your house for $75K, sold it for $150K, you made $75k that year, it gets taxed like any other income. You inherited cash property or anything else, it's income and gets taxed 5%. And all income gets taxed the exact same 5%. No hiding money for the future in 401(k) plans or IRA plans--no need to anyway, since the flat tax defeats the purpose. All income of any kind, a flat tax. No exceptions, including churches, which are currently tax exempt.
Anybody for that?
2007-02-25 07:40:46 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let me clarify some things about my question. One, I am not sure whether I am for a flat tax or not. But I have thought that richer people have more opportunities to get out of paying taxes than poorer people do. So I wondered if richer people would still be for a flat tax if the the playing field were completely level--ie, no tax-sheltered retirement accounts, no itemized deductions for charitable contributions, no loopholes of any kind, as well as calling and income at all as taxable income, including the sale of private property, and also doing away the the tax-excempt status churches and not-for-profit organizations enjoy. Totally fair. Would they still go for it?
2007-02-25 12:04:42 · update #1
YES 1000% What could be fairer? Make a little pay a little--make a lot, pay a lot!
2007-02-25 07:44:22 · answer #1 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To me, a flat tax is the only thing that makes sense.
Why should we have to pay different amounts?
From what I understand, if everyone paid a flat 5% tax we could crush the deficit.
But EVERYONE should pay tax, no exceptions, credits or deductions.
I think it is the only fair system. Keep in mind, I am a single mom and own my own home... I get cash back EVERY YEAR! and I still don't think it's fair.
Why should the younger people who work hard and are waiting to have kids until they can afford it have to pay more than, well, me?
There would have to be accountability from employers, and it would have to be watched closely, so so one could "shelter" money. You get it taken out of your pay before getting it.
It is a simple system however, and would wipe out the April 15 panic, and makes sense.
Am I wrong???
2007-02-26 14:17:26 · answer #2 · answered by my-kids-mom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Studies have shown that if we want to balance the budget with our current rate of government spending, the flat tax would need to be around 17%. That would be a burden on the low income people who are paying 10% to 15% now. But mostly I suspect that the rich would never allow a system that did not provide them with loopholes to shelter there income from taxation.
2007-02-25 13:16:05 · answer #3 · answered by Greye Wolfe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the income tax is unconstitutional, and actually illegal, I would not support any kind of tax on our labor...However, I would support a national sales tax of between 2% and 5%, which would actually be a kind of tax that is allowable by the constitution. But, I feel that certain things such as food and medicine, which are necessary to basic survival, should be exempt, and that the percentages remain stable, and that nothing is ever taxed more than once....meaning no tax on second and third and fourth hand items....and so on!!!!!
2007-02-25 08:03:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. It's the right wing wet dream. And the rich would STILL be hiding money in numbered offshore accounts and using other tax dodges... COUNT ON IT!!! Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2007-02-25 08:05:57 · answer #5 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, why not pay say 5% for everyone which is far better than those 2% who "benefit the most from capitalism" who pay 38% of the tax that the President feels "doesn't pay their fair share"... I paid about 8% last year and believe me, I am no where near "affluent" let alone "rich"!
2016-03-29 00:20:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. No property taxes either...replaced by a higher
sales tax so those rich people who buy high-priced goods
would then pay more.
2007-02-25 07:48:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about a tax on the things we buy, exclusively? We should eliminate the income tax completely.
2007-02-25 07:51:51 · answer #8 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YES YES YES YES AND YES !!
But you'll never see one unless it is accompanied by a 12" thick book of loop holes and special interest exemptions.
Look what happened the last time congress "SIMPLIFIED" the federal income tax !!
2007-02-25 07:47:52 · answer #9 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no.
I think the first 10,000 a person makes from income shouldn't be taxed. that will make things fair and help out families
2007-02-25 07:49:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋