You won't get any argument from me! Graduated income taxes are the fairest of all taxes as they are directly linked to the taxpayer's ability to pay. (That's the first rule of taxation, by the way; make sure that the taxpayer can afford to pay the tax!)
Property taxes come second, at least during your productive years but may elderly retirees living on a fixed income are quickly overrun by rising property taxes.
Sales taxes are down in the dungeon of tax fairness. They disproportionally affect the poor who have to pay a much larger percentage of tax on items essential to basic survival. The so-called "Fair Tax" is a total oxymoron when it comes to fairness!
And the "Flat Tax" is patently absurd as it transfers the burden to the middle class and creams the poor while giving a major break to the wealthy. Why do you think that it's universally supported by the wealthy? (And BTW, 10% would NEVER cut it. It would have to be closer to 25% to generate the same revenue that our current graduated income tax does.)
Note to "Professor": Rush (Hypocritic Gas Bag) and The National Review (Neo-con Shill Rag). Now THERE are a couple of bastions of balanced and un-biased information. NOT!
2007-06-16 12:12:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bostonian In MO 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
So, you don't like sales taxes in Florida? Why don't you move to New York City? There you can pay Federal income tax, state income tax, CITY income tax AND pay sales taxes. BTW, even though Florida has a sales tax and no state income taxes, the sales taxes in Florida are about the same rates as other states that DO have income taxes.
Fair Tax - NO!
Flat Tax - NO!
The most equitable taxation would be to continue with a graduated income tax rate where higher incomes pay a higher rate, but get rid of the complexity. Make the tax code where everybody could fill out a 1040EZ form and be done.
2007-06-16 16:55:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by NGC6205 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You are clearly oblivious.
Define "Fair" share. Seriously, give me a percentage. What percentage of the tax burden is the riches "Fair share"?
Currently the rich pay about 98.5% of the tax burden, and you're saying that they're not paying they're fair share???
Federal income tax is paid by 50% of income earners. That means 50% of income earners are getting a free ride. Additionally, 50% can vote for taxes that benefit them that the other half pays for.
Is that your definition of "Fair"???
Really...answer my questions. I'm interested.
The poor are quick to vote for services when others are paying for them. However, when a local election asks if people want to raise sales tax, it's often shot down. Hypocritical???
Also, sales tax is a local tax for local interests. If you don't like it, take it up with your state, county, and city officials. Get rid of the taxes...but don't make someone else pay for the stuff that you want.
You want a free ride on the coat tails of the rich. Admit that you want the riches money and that you're lazy please.
2007-06-18 15:03:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ender 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Your question belies your ignorance. We (Americans) do have a [Federal] income tax, a tax that so-called rich people already pay.
How exactly do you figure sales taxes hurt the low and middle income earning people more than they do the higher-earning people?
I could go on and on (and frequently do), but what exactly makes you think the so-called rich don't pay their fair share when 96% of the income taxes are paid by the top 50% of the wage earners (what you would call the 'rich')? This means the lower 50% [of the people] pay only 4% of the taxes. This is fair? Puh-leeze.
Stats for 2003: the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.
Ironically enough, it is the so-called poor and middle class that do not pay their fair share, and it is our existing graduated income tax that is punitive. It penalizes success, removes incentives, and stifles expansion and growth.
You are woefully ignorant regarding this topic, but feel free to post again whenever you need a refresher on how things really are, and how things really work.
2007-06-16 14:11:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sgt Pepper 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
Flat tax on everything owned, any profits accrued anywhere.
2% across the board.
Two cents of every dollar and no person would have a reason to avoid payment.
Does not apply to stuff bought before (X) date of signing, does apply to any and all transfers of funds after.
Heck at 1.5 would wipe any debt out in three months or less and have plenty left over, but keep the pro politicians away from it.
Term limits, and same tax on them as is on US.
2007-06-16 12:15:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
How about no taxes? Sales tax is local state tax. State income tax is local. Income tax is national.
2007-06-16 12:02:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
We would all be better off if the government went to a flat percentage of wages that were the same for all individuals.
Once the loop holes were all removed, no more donations,or deductions, child credit and clergy exemptions the need for sales tax would be greatly reduced.
10% of the wages of ALL would go along way towards solving our national debt crisis.
2007-06-16 12:01:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by fairbetsy 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
You just made a very valid argument against the "fair tax" proposal on the national level.
2007-06-16 13:07:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Judy 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The only fair tax is a flat tax with an appropriate sales tax exempting only the items like food, drugs, etc.
People in proverty should be exempt.
2007-06-16 12:03:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Grogan 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
Tell that to all the wealthy people and see the response you get!
2007-06-16 12:02:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by Janice 10 7
·
0⤊
0⤋