Re: Mitt Romneys' question "How can we change the tax code to ease the burden on our families..."

Question

Why is it not so obvious that if the governement needs money the wealthiest should pay up. Is in't it fair to say that the wealthiest live a more "American Dream" than anybody. If money is needed how much can you get from a poorer man making 10-50 k year salary than some one making a ridiculus couple million.. What do they need it for? honestly. How poor can you get has a limit...... 0 how rich can you get is infinite.

Answer 1

irs can be replaced and taxes collected easily by implementing a national sales tax which captures taxes on all illegal and black market monies that won't be taxed with any other plan such as a flat tax. if you can afford to buy it get it, if not don't. eliminating billions of dollars by getting rid of the thousands of pages of tax code, forms, postage, agents to find "cheaters" which the irs creates by making it impossible to file tax returns correctly.

Answer 2

I believe that the cost to run the IRS is too expensive the way it is set up now. There are way too many regulations and rules to exempt people and to administer the IRS, it outlandish. I once heard that it costs about $35. million to collect $53 million may or may not be true, but I do believe it costs a lot to collect money each week from each of us, then at the end of the year decide how much we get back when processing the hundreds of millions of taxpayer claims.
Why not just eliminate the tax system as it is and initiate a national sales tax. This would not only reduce the cost of the IRS as a government body, it would also increase the taxes collected from those who work under the table. Whether or not they pay taxes when they get paid, they would certainly pay when they purchased anything. Anyone buying anything would be contributing to the government coffers to run the government. And we would all pay taxes on how much we consumed. The rich, of course with their greater spending would pay more and those who are on subsistence living standards would pay less. No matter who you are, you use government services therefore you should pay for what you use. Some of us use more than others, but if we spread the cost out among all of us, ultimately it would be better for the entire nation.
This may not be a viable solution, but perhaps a combination of national sales tax and a flat tax could be a working and rational change for the tax code.

Answer 3

Your thinking is muddled on a number of points.

First, at the present time, approximately 50% of the poor pay only payroll taxes. In addition, they receive approximately $8.50 in government benefits for every dollar they generate in the economy. By contrast, “the rich”, defined as the upper 20% of the income spectrum, pay more then 80% of all income taxes. And just to let you know, “the rich”, or the upper 20% of the income universe, is only about $90K, or what many two income households make across America.

Second, most of those in the upper income levels got there through personal effort and risk taking. Most are small business owners who, by working long hours, and risking their entire life savings, managed to provide a service or product that others like and are willing to pay for. And along the way, they provide jobs for many others who are not willing to take the same risks, or work as hard. Less then 20% of “the rich” end up that way because of an inheritance.

Third, the question of “what they do they need it for”, referring to the “right” of those who have earned and created wealth, to keep it, is much broader then taxation. In essence, you are maintaining that any group with political power, has the right to use the police power of the state to take whatever it wants from others. What you are proposing is little more then the nationalization of all wealth and property. The state would “own” everything, and would decide who gets what. Fortunately, for most of us, the United States has provided a Constitution that forbids such actions. Under our form of government, individuals are entitled to the fruits of their labors, whether those labors result in a meager, or massive, income.

Fourth, there is no limit on the creation of wealth. Especially when those who actually create the wealth are able to enjoy the fruits of their labors. And that is a good thing. As more wealth is created, it eventually has to enter into the market place, and becomes available for others to earn and enjoy. In other words, as the rich get richer, they raise the standard of living of the entire community in which they live.

And to counter the tired old, class-warfare, adage of the rich getting richer, and the poor, poorer, that doesn’t happen when new wealth is created. Even if the gap between the rich and poor gets wider, the standard of living of the poor still gets higher. The only people “hurt” are those for whom envy is more important then an improved standard of living.

Answer 4

I agree with you to a certain extent. Using a national sales tax would go a long way to ensuring that the wealthiest "pay up." They buy more, so why shouldn't they pay more?!

However, using an income tax to accomplish the same thing would not work. One of the problems with such a premise is that there are not enough "rich" people out there that taxing their income to the extreme would generate sufficient revenue for the government to function. I seriously doubt that taking 99 percent of the total income received by the wealthiest 10 percent in this county would provide adequate revenue to run the country. Plus, if I earned sufficient income to qualify as "rich" and the government wanted to tax a higher percentage, I'd probably just move my assets to another country to avoid paying the higher tax.

I think your question demonstrates why we need to scrap the income tax and 1) completely revamp how our government takes in money; and 2) demand fiscal accountability from our Congress - there's way too much waste at the federal level.

Answer 5

I would hope that someone would realize that the cost of living and everything in gerneral should come down a bit so everyone could get a chance to make it. It is so hard to make ends meet even with a job that pays 11.00 dollars an hour. It's so ridiculous that people have to work 2-3 jobs just to try to make ends meet, and some people have to put off retiring to make it. Why can the rich put all thier money to good use and give us poor people some relief? I would like to own my own home someday, but still have money to pay the bills that come with it, but right now, how exspensive everything is, i'll be lucky to see that happen, and i'm only 25 years old.

Answer 6

End the IRS now Internal Ripoff Service. Show me the code or section that states American workers need to pay an income tax on wages? Taxes on gains or profits yes. We need to go to a Flat Tax, Fair Tax.
Stop our government spending our money on other countries such as Iraq 400 BILLION and counting. And many many others it is outragous what kind of handouts we give them. BILLIONS AND BILLIONS. WIth AMERICANS MONEY.
It doesn't matter what political party you belong to but come on we are all AMERICANS and need to take a stand right now. Time is ticking and pretty soon what will happen when it is time to pay the national debt (THEY WILL WANT TO COLLECT SOONER OR LATER) The dollar is weaking now just imagine the way we are going what it will be worth in 15 years?? Not that far away folks.

American companies moving oversea's for cheaper labor and no EPA controll. I hate seening that. This causes alot of good paying jobs to be gone. BUT when they want to bring the goods back TAX TAX TAX and make it a heafty one. After all they can pay it with the cheap labor they just got. Tax the goods. They will keep the work here I am sure.

But we need to go to a flat tax and try to elect officials that back it.
Elect officials who want to end The Federal Reserve (REALLY BAD) (BIG BANKING LOVES THE INTEREST)
Thanks and let's just hope we get action and change soon.

Answer 7

The best answer to the tax problem in this country is to implement The Fair Tax espoused by Neil Boortz and Congressman Linder. It essentially does away with all taxes except for a flat sales tax. The amount calculated to be paid for essential goods, food, etc. would be sent to each person at the beginning of the year so the sales taxes they paid for food would not affect them. All other taxes would be eliminated. This would still result in the same funding for the government as there is now.

Answer 8

It's best to avoid generalizations, so saying the rich should pay more means we have to define what is 'rich'. This definition has changed from time to time as witnessed by the top tax brackets being adjusted.

But as anyone knows, we can tax the uber-rich a lot more and it won't make a dent on the US deficit. It's the millions in the middle that make the difference and we're all part of that middle.

I think the way to lower taxes is for the US government (and thus, us, the people who vote in the leaders) to stop thinking that they have an open ended reserve of money. The US continues to spend money without thinking of how to pay for it. If you our I did that, eventually our creditors would come calling and we'd have to stop.

So what I say, is force our elected officials to live within our means. If we don't have any more money to spend and we aren't willing to gather more through taxes, than we need to live with less. Simple as that.

Problem is that our government thinks the exact same way as the majority of Americans. We want to have it all. We don't want to live within our means. We think we can borrow like there is no day of reckoning ahead. We want to live like the Jones.

Once we as a people learn to save, perhaps we can send leaders to Washington who will learn to save. Once we have some money in the bank, we can one day cut back on our savings and spend a little. Once our government gets it's house in order, there may be no problem with reducing taxes.

Answer 9

I'd like to know where in the tax code these breaks for the super rich are that all you are screaming about. I do taxes for "rich people" for a living and if you could just point out one break they get, I could live a lot better.

But the reality is the current code is set up to tax the rich as much as possible and let the poor pay as little as possible. That's why the rich pay me to do their taxes to minimize the bite. That's also why congress won't change it because its obvious to anybody who actually knows the real code that its already set up to help the poor and middle class.

Answer 10

Here's a thought for tax reform and healthcare all in one!!! In my opinion a flat tax rate would be the simplest, the most effective and the fairest for all of us. Everyone would pay the same proportion of what they make with no taxes due for persons with an income below a certain amount determined by the minimum amount of money needed to provide a person or family with their basic necessities such as a roof over their heads, food and a means of transportation along with an allowance for medical expenses. This figure would vary according the area of the country people live and be assessed based on the cost of living in the area they reside. For the people with incomes above the minimum amount there would be just a few simple deductions for children in the house and the like. People paying rent should not be discriminated against because they do not own a home and can not claim a deduction whether they rent or own. No deductions or the same deduction for all people. A simple tax code, I think our current coder is over 7000 pages long) would thereby reduce the amount of the tax dollars which are spent to write, interpret & administer the collection of taxes hence reducing the number of government employees required to over see such a complex and involved tax system. Hence more funds available for thing s such as the necessary and essential national healthcare plan. The tax laws and code should be simple enough so that it is not necessary to have someone do your taxes for you. The flat rate should apply to all taxable monies equally at the same percentage for items such as capital gains, investment income rental income so that everyone is treated equally. With a flat rate equal percentage for everyone when the rate of taxation is increased or decreased depending upon the needs of the country, everyone’s rate would be increased at the same percentage. By this simplification there would so many more man/woman hours of labor saved by each and everyone of us across the board. If everyone averages 4 hours to prepare their taxes for example and the time is reduced to 1 hour, saving 3 hours multiplied by the number of taxpayers this would amount to a phenomenally large number. Let’s just say there are 150,000,000 million taxpayers that would be 450,000,000 million saved hours per year!!!! Or, 51,369 years total saved time! If all of us taxpayers took those 3 hours and worked at our jobs and took that money, all the money for those 3 hours not just the taxable amount and put in a national healthcare every year then we would have a solvent healthcare system for everyone in no time! And, we would not have worked any more hours than we already do! Along with the money saved by revamping our current tax system we should have ample monies for healthcare. 2 birds with one stone!

Answer 11

Our Tax system has needed a major overhaul for years. I have been a strong supporter of the national sales tax. With a national sales tax everyone pays their fair share. If you spend, you pay, if you don't, you save. This eliminates paper work required to be filed by individuals for federal taxes and would probably reduce the size of the IRS. I don't believe the IRS can be completely eliminated because some agency has to be in charge of the collection of these taxes.

At a 10% national tax rate, $100,000,000,000 .00 of spending would produce $10,000,000,000.00 in tax revenue.

What does that mean for the consumer? Let's see. A night out for dinner and a movie would cost around $100.00. Most local tax rates are around 6.5 to 8.5% , so lets use 7.5% as the average. With the national sales tax, a $100.00 night out would become $117.50, but keep in mind that the 15% income tax would now be going home with you. Therefore on $100.00 of income you would pay $15.00 in income tax plus $7.50 sales tax when you spend that $100.00 for a total out of pocket of $122.50 as opposed to the $117.50 you would pay with a national sales tax. A savings $5.00.

You do the math....