Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands January 12th, 2013 12:00am

Evolve the current income tax system, or throw it out and replace it with something completely new?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Think Lovin Life
01/16/13 9:08 pm

The results show that nearly 50% of Democrats are actually afraid of change! How ironic is that?!

badattitude no place like home
01/16/13 8:00 pm

Your funny. I think. You should loose a few pounds for yourself and keep your money.

Reply
badattitude no place like home
01/16/13 7:54 pm

Fair tax would work. But the politicians won't have it because they won't get any kick backs from the lobbyists.

RayX quit
01/16/13 7:51 pm

Obamacare drives up all our cost with this obese nation.
If I were taxed by the pound I would lose a few pounds.
It's too logical to be funny.

badattitude no place like home
01/16/13 7:51 pm

Yes but the libs don't want fair. They are afraid that some people will have to pay some tax. And they want some people to pay no tax. But somehow it's completely fair for everyone to pay the rate of sales tax.

Gummibear
01/16/13 4:08 pm

The income tax isn't even backed by law.

RayX quit
01/15/13 9:18 pm

Forget the fair tax and the flat tax. We need a Fat Tax.

They cost all of us and there are enough of them they can pay off the debt. Obama can do it be Executive Action. Let's petition him.

vbranger Hillary for Prison
01/15/13 7:45 pm

Fast & Furious,Benghazi,Solyndra, AAA downgrade,Did nothing on Oil Spill Disaster for 30 days,6.5 tril new debt, unaffordable health care,blames Bush and everyone else for his failures but takes credit if its good, more lavish vacations than any other pres, no spending cuts, what else can we ask for

Reply
Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
01/15/13 3:59 pm

A universal flat tax rate; meaning the tax is the same rate for EVERYTHING that is taxed. Completely fair.

thefordman Georgia
01/15/13 1:35 pm

72-28 at this moment. There is still hope for this country!

ScrewU Gone
01/15/13 11:00 am

Tax attorneys and lobbyist would be in hog heaven if we created a flat tax... They'd get to earn all that money they got for getting loopholes and sweetheart deals passed the first time... again.

ScrewU Gone
01/15/13 5:39 am

Income taxes are non-apportioned levies in the nature of an excise, according to the SCOTUS.

Back to the drawing board RPG.

ScrewU Gone
01/15/13 4:26 am

My county put money in a "rainy day" fund and we rode out the last election without any layoffs. There CAN be effective governance, just apparently not at the federal level.

RayX quit
01/14/13 5:59 pm

I wish I could like you twice. Tony needs to add a love button.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
01/14/13 9:23 am

ITeach ... the problem with the flat tax is that without it, corrupt politicians can't divide citizens.

The flat tax would ensure that the poor would join the rest of us to hold politicians accountable for irresponsible spending. As it is now, the poor pay nothing and are not motivated to save.

Reply
dbalent
01/14/13 5:54 am

I am debt free, have a positive net worth, my own retirement accounts and manage to get my own health insurance. I do not need the Federal Government giving me financial advise, trying to manage my portfolio or my healthcare.

dbalent
01/14/13 5:48 am

Camlop seems to be the very rare Californian that has seen the results of his/her state's tax policies.

Well done and good luck out there!

dbalent
01/14/13 5:37 am

The country managed to run without income taxes for so long because we were not a nation of beggars. Men used to take pride in providing for their family. Now they take pride in qualifying for yet another government hand out.

Reply
dbalent
01/14/13 5:32 am

The issue with this approach is that if the stock market goes down over the course of a year there is reduced revenue to the Federal Govt. they cannot agree to and pass a budget let alone live within it now. If revenues drop they would have to cut something or ballon the deficit even more.

jamjay Atlanta, Ga
01/14/13 4:11 am

Start over - but, not with the Big Dummy in the office.

Reply
glorfindel
01/13/13 10:13 pm

No more income taxes. The government can be funded by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs.

Reply
rodin South Dakota
01/13/13 9:51 pm

agreed. no one should receive more from the government, than that person lays in taxes

huskermedic Cincinnati
01/13/13 9:33 pm

I will throw my vote in the hat for the fair tax. Which to do that you would throw everything out and start over.

When you have an entire industry dedicated to helping file tax's that should tell you you need to find a better way to do it.

aph514
01/13/13 8:49 pm

I believe Adaala and I are on the same page with something... I don't think that's happened before.

RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 7:13 pm

this has already been argued by the Supreme Court. You're about 100 years too late.

Reply
badattitude no place like home
01/13/13 7:05 pm

Why progressive? How about flat or a fair tax. See fairtax.org

instate73 Louisiana
01/13/13 6:41 pm

Apparently the IRS and Congress and especially the President haven't heard/read the statement "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" if FAIRNESS is the goal then all Americans should be taxed at the same rate. 10% with individuals making less than $10000 exempt and then progressive all the way up to $20000 ect

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 6:33 pm

well said Adaala!

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 6:32 pm

I will refrain from expressing specific support without thinking/researching more about it, but I am more inclined to support something of that sort rather than fair or flat taxes as others here have articulated.

Reply
ScrewU Gone
01/13/13 6:31 pm

It's brilliant, if you ask me. :p

Reply
ScrewU Gone
01/13/13 6:29 pm

Right now we let GE move all of its $26 bil in US profits offshore and pay not a penny in federal taxes. Legally.

Just ending corporate welfare would go a long way towards balancing the budget. It's not hard to track worldwide profits these days.

Reply
iTeach Mos Eisley
01/13/13 6:11 pm

Okay, final question. What about Adaala's suggestion of only taxing unearned income?

thatguy81 here
01/13/13 5:34 pm

Those with a will will find a way*
Wow my auto correct is killing me tonight

RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 5:32 pm

food, water, and medicine in impoverished areas means more children surviving and more time for family (instead of struggling to survive). This means fewer babies being born.

thatguy81 here
01/13/13 5:32 pm

How are things like homesteading bad? Create much of your own food, harvest rainwater and use solar. Your impact is far less than the average suburban home an you spend far less money. Plenty of people homestead (crops, animals and all) on one acre.

Reply
thatguy81 here
01/13/13 5:29 pm

Not following how technology is keeping us from breeding quickly...unless of course we sit on the Internet and order all our food so we become hesitant to human interaction like dating and we get so fat no one wants to breed with us...

thatguy81 here
01/13/13 5:27 pm

Those will a will I find a way to avoid it or skirt it. How well do we track off shore bank accounts with unearned income in foreign markets?

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 5:20 pm

but there are plenty of other problems with the "fair tax". Looking at what VATs do to economies is a clear example. Not to mention, a FT, which is worse, would create a grey market where cash exchanges would emerge and tax revenues would decrease. Just like in Greece.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 5:18 pm

if basic necessities are exempt, and possibly keeping welfare and unemploy befits as the FT website suggests, it might not be as severely detrimental.

iTeach Mos Eisley
01/13/13 5:17 pm

Okay, so what about a fair tax where the basic necessities are exempt?

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 5:10 pm

well, the people part on the planet, yes and no. yes, more people is bad...no, the rate at which we are multiplying is dropping. it's taking longer to get to 8b than it took to get to 7b, which took longer to get to 6b. so, there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

...and why is that? Tech!

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
01/13/13 5:06 pm

The cost of basic necessities, for base-level survival means that 10% on 10 or 20K a year is going to be harder than the 10% on a million dollars. The millionaire has to struggle to live with $900k while the other has to with $9k.

Reply
RayX quit
01/13/13 5:03 pm

DB: I had in mind a flat sales tax for all raw materials. Non negotiable. As long as Government spending goes unchecked they will be bending rules to add taxes without reducing others. It should be set permanently and these discussions ended.

iTeach Mos Eisley
01/13/13 5:02 pm

Back on topic, I like the idea of only taxing unearned income. Would that drive up corporate tax rates to the point of putting them out of business?

thatguy81 here
01/13/13 5:02 pm

I said it makes us lazier and fatter, I never said it was bad. An your comment about dying at 55: two things. 1) Clearly I wasn't talking about medical advances...but 70" TVs with DVR and genetically modified food. And 2, there are WAY more people on this planet then we can sustain for much longer

Reply
iTeach Mos Eisley
01/13/13 4:59 pm

Can someone please explain to me why a flat tax hurts the poor? Are you saying that the poor can't afford to pay 10% but the rich can? Is that the argument? Is it the same argument against a fair tax? That's a use tax, right? What about a fair tax which exempts food?

Reply
thatguy81 here
01/13/13 4:59 pm

Most Americans care more about what Lady GaGa thinks about space travel then they do about our scientists and philosophers. I think that says a lot about America.