Online Now 3114

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2353
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3178
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

What's the advantages of

  • having a federal flat tax and essentially eliminating the IRS vs keeping the current system. I have always felt that the IRS stood for "individuals representing satan" and am somewhat for the federal flat sales tax. Seems to me like it would shrink the heck out of
    government in at least one capacity and puts the burden of collection on business owners at point of purchase. I know there is a lot more to it but it just seems like a better system to me.

    signature image

    I dream of a day when chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

    Gfortress5 ●

  • It's fair, proportional, constitutional, fiscally brilliant and a number of other reasons it will never pass.

    fsufsu

  • I don't know, I think some people should simply be exempt from paying taxes. If you are a hard worker, but lack the skills or cognitive ability to get a good job, you could conceivably have two jobs, work 80 hours a week at minimum wage and make only $30,000. 10% (or whatever arbitrary number you come up with) of that yearly wage hurts a lot worse than 10% of a $100,000 yearly wage.

    Just saying...

    signature image

    "Show class, have pride, and display character. If you do, winning takes care of itself." -Coach Bryant

    bcal16 ●

  • rolBAMAballs said...

    So all individuals pay the same percentage of tax on their income regardless of income?

    Yes, basically to be an American you pay 12% or something.

    fsufsu

  • bcal16 said...

    I don't know, I think some people should simply be exempt from paying taxes. If you are a hard worker, but lack the skills or cognitive ability to get a good job, you could conceivably have two jobs, work 80 hours a week at minimum wage and make only $30,000. 10% (or whatever arbitrary number you come up with) of that yearly wage hurts a lot worse than 10% of a $100,000 yearly wage.

    Just saying...

    There would be an undoubted percentage that need to be exempt. Maybe the bottom 25-30% of people.

    fsufsu

  • fsufsu said...

    It's fair, proportional, constitutional, fiscally brilliant and a number of other reasons it will never pass.

    no

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • ilovelamp51 said...

    Makes too much sense...

    Plus everyone would have to pay their own way versus placing the burden on the wealthy.

    clap

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • ilovelamp51 said...

    FIFY IYAM IMNSHO

    That works too.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • fsufsu said...

    It's fair, proportional, constitutional, fiscally brilliant and a number of other reasons it will never pass.

    A "federal flat sales tax" is NOT proportional.

    Wealthy individuals spend a lower percentage of their incomes than individuals who earn lower incomes. Because of this, the wealthy individuals would be subjected to the "federal flat sales tax" less often and would therefore pay a smaller proportional amount of taxes.

    It's a regressive system.

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    A "federal flat sales tax" is NOT proportional.

    Wealthy individuals spend a lower percentage of their incomes than individuals who earn lower incomes. Because of this, the wealthy individuals would be subjected to the "federal flat sales tax" less often and would therefore pay a smaller proportional amount of taxes.

    It's a regressive system.

    prettty sure we are talking income tax, skippy. Your point is still not valid, though.. Try again.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    prettty sure we are talking income tax, skippy. Your point is still not valid, though.. Try again.

    Well if you think he's talking about an "income tax" then I'm pretty sure you're wrong, skippy.

    He said "federal flat sales tax" and even went on to describe how the burden of collection would be on "business owners at point of purchase." That clearly refers to a flat sales tax, which is regressive. If you don't understand that, there are thousands of experts who disagree with you.

    But keep thinking that there's an easy fix for all of this, even though every country in the world struggles with the structure of their tax code.

    This post was edited by AbsenteeTrojan on 12/12/2012 at 1:54 PM

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    prettty sure we are talking income tax, skippy. Your point is still not valid, though.. Try again.

    Even a flat income tax is regressive. The VAST majority of the country makes less than $250,000 a year and it is almost totally wages. Realistically, people that would be considered "poor", would be paying a higher percentage of their income as taxes under a flat tax then they would under the current law, while most people between the lower end of the line above poverty and the upper end of the line below wealthy would be paying about the same given that deductions would be taken away. People making above $250,000 would see their share of taxes fall dramatically since a) income would be taxed at a lower rate and b) most of their wealth is in investments and capital (which would now not be taxed).

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Even a flat income tax is regressive. The VAST majority of the country makes less than $250,000 a year and it is almost totally wages. Realistically, people that would be considered "poor", would be paying a higher percentage of their income as taxes under a flat tax then they would under the current law, while most people between the lower end of the line above poverty and the upper end of the line below wealthy would be paying about the same given that deductions would be taken away. People making above $250,000 would see their share of taxes fall dramatically since a) income would be taxed at a lower rate and b) most of their wealth is in investments and capital (which would now not be taxed).

    I'm not sure it's worth mentioning "regressive" and "progressive" income tax systems to these people. They don't understand the basic economic arguments behind each system.

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    I'm not sure it's worth mentioning "regressive" and "progressive" income tax systems to these people. They don't understand the basic economic arguments behind each system.

    Seriously, I came into this thread and was instantly amazed at how few people understand the concept of a regressive v. progressive tax structure.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • Even if the gov't moved to this kind of system it would just be a matter of time before a politcal party ran on the basis that they needed to up the tax % on certain items because they are a luxury. You would end up in the same situation you have now.

    Johns381

  • rolBAMAballs said...

    So all individuals pay the same percentage of tax on their income regardless of income?

    No, I miss stated it at 2 am but I like where this is going, you pay a specific amount of tax on your purchases. If you buy a 1000.00 car you pay 120.00 tax, if you buy a 100,000.00 car you pay 12000.00 tax. Its the same with houses but it is one time deal or any other purchases. It gives you the freedom to invest in America without being constantly being taxed for doing so and so on for a sales tax option.

    I created this because the sales tax and the flat federal seemed interesting to me 4 and 8 years ago when ole what's his name was running on it.

    This post was edited by Gfortress5 on 12/12/2012 at 5:01 PM

    signature image

    I dream of a day when chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

    Gfortress5 ●

  • Gfortress5 said...

    No, you pay a specific amount of tax on your purchases. If you buy a 1000.00 car you pay 120.00 tax, if you buy a 100,000.00 car you pay 12000.00 tax. Its the same with houses but it is one time deal or any other purchases. It gives you the freedom to invest in America without being constantly being taxed for doing so and so on.

    facepalm_msu

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    facepalm_msu

    I don't get out much and I don't watch the news so I pick up bits and pieces. Sorry.

    signature image

    I dream of a day when chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

    Gfortress5 ●

  • Gfortress5 said...

    No, I miss stated it at 2 am but I like where this is going, you pay a specific amount of tax on your purchases. If you buy a 1000.00 car you pay 120.00 tax, if you buy a 100,000.00 car you pay 12000.00 tax. Its the same with houses but it is one time deal or any other purchases. It gives you the freedom to invest in America without being constantly being taxed for doing so and so on for a sales tax option.

    I created this because the sales tax and the flat federal seemed interesting to me 4 and 8 years ago when ole what's his name was running on it.

    What are you even talking about?

    If you're talking about state sales tax, state sales taxes are already flat (and regressive).

    If you're talking about federal income tax, that's an entirely different matter.

    What are you trying to propose here?

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • Gfortress5 said...

    I don't get out much and I don't watch the news so I pick up bits and pieces. Sorry.

    There are very few places in the world that don't tax investment. If you are referring to double taxation, then is a valid discussion. Personally though, an argument that we should establish a regressive flat sales tax to spur investment as a competitive advantage is rather suspect.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • CMXI said...

    What are you even talking about?

    If you're talking about state sales tax, state sales taxes are already flat (and regressive).

    If you're talking about federal income tax, that's an entirely different matter.

    What are you trying to propose here?

    How about a Federal sales tax. The infrastructure is already in place.

    signature image

    I dream of a day when chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

    Gfortress5 ●

  • Gfortress5 said...

    How about a Federal sales tax. The infrastructure is already in place.

    And get rid of what?

    Every other tax?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • Gfortress5 said...

    How about a Federal sales tax. The infrastructure is already in place.

    On top of a state sales tax?

    Actually, before I go into any more depth on this, do you know what a regressive tax is, and why current state sales taxes are viciously regressive?

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    And get rid of what?

    Every other tax?

    Federal income tax. It works in Florida very well

    signature image

    I dream of a day when chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

    Gfortress5 ●

  • This is a terrible measurement, but I took the US GDP and got out a nominal amount for a year based on average (better than now though, keep that in mind) growth rate of 3% and you get about $450B. Now I think about 75% of this is based on consumption. So that gives you a rough number of $337.5B. Even if you tax that at 100%, you get about 11.6% of the requested revenue of the FY 2013 US Federal Budget....

    So....

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports