Re: State sounds alarm over road funding


We have had several tax law changes over the years, no one that I know
of in any legislative position has seriously proposed a flat rate
tax. It has never happened and it never will.

No matter what you think the US has always had a progressive tax
structure for all the reasons I have said.

And you're proving my point. We haven't had a tax overhaul. And it's
long overdue.




What you are talking about would not only be a tax overhaul, it would
be a financial disaster. Like I told you initially, 5% out of 5K is a
lot bigger chunk the 5% out of 100K. Again, that is the reason it
will NEVER happen.

I know there are a lot of things you don't like, and there probably a
lot of things you don't understand. I hope you have a long life, but
you will NEVER see a flat rate tax in the US, EVER.

I really don't believe you are THINKING. 5% out of a 5K income is
$250. Now you are talking no deductions, no exemptions, no nothing.
That leaves $4750. Like I said, that is a big chunk if that is all
you have.

Now out of $100K, 5% is $5000. That leaves $95K, alot easier to take.

Now another thing you are NOT thinking about, the elimination of home
deductions, interest, etc. From one of the things I read it would
immediately cause a huge drop in housing prices.






I have no idea why you want to coddle high income people, but they do
not need coddling, not now, not ever. The entire government structure
is designed to protect wealth, why should they get more?

You tell me what happens on the current tax system. The rich can take
advantage of all kinds of tax credits and exemptions and tax shelters
and exempt investments. The poor don't have that opportunity because
they don't have the money. That's not anything resembling a fair system.



Right but now, generally speaking the poor do not pay anywhere near 5%
and they do get exemptions and at least the standard deduction.

And you know full well, most people over pay their taxes so they get a
nice big refund check. You are the one blasting anything
socialistic. So in an even superficially capitalistic system such as
we have now, what do you expect from the people that control things.

And you know what is happening from people that you think are poor,
but have a fairly nice lifestyle. They pool their incomes. IOW a
couple of them work at Wal Mart, maybe someone works at a local
warehouse for $10 an hour, and so on. You know what when you put it
all together they have a combined income of $40-50 an hour.

That is how they are able to afford some of the housing in NJ.






You attempt to oversimplify everything, and I do not apprciate it.

Oversimply, no. Simplify, yes



You say a flat rate tax will solve all of our problems. It will not
and it will hurt a lot of people. I get the impression that you do
not care about them, only coddling the rich.

And BTW a 5% flat tax will not provide enough money for govt as we
know it, maybe that is one of the reasons you propose it, to starve
govt, and hurt people.

Strange, I never suggested a number. And I never said anything about
starving government and hurting people. I never said anything about
what levels and tax revenues ought to be. Yet you make a bunch of
assumptions, jump to conclusions and start making accusations.


Well you tell me, what is a flat tax? You just don't like it when I
bring to life and show how overly simplistic and really ignorant it
is. That is the way I deal with oversimplifications and ignorance, I
show the reality of the situation.

You indicated one flat tax for everything, you did that, I did not.

Now if you want to suggest a percentage go ahead, but unless it is
around 20% it is not going to fund govt as we know it.

That means that people are going to be hurt. Now if you want to
starve the military, that I am all in favor of, but the rest of the
citizenry, no.

And you know what I told you about when transportation has to compete
with everything else for funding, it is going to lose.
You may not like that, but that is the truth.

Another thing I told you, if you bothered to read, was that I have
heard it all before. You are NOT the first one to propose a flat
tax. Usually it is proposed by right wing people that want to protect
the rich and starve govt.


You think you are so right, Randy, that you are reading things that
aren't there. And that's pretty close minded.



You just don't like it when I bring it down to reality.

I have no idea what you do for work, but if you manage something, you
cannot manage anything based on theories, you have to deal with
reality, and what has happened in the past, and applying it to the
future.

And another thing that helps is the ability to anticipate.


Randy


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] Iraq
    ... The flat tax has been called a regressive tax, ... increased income. ... A pure "flat-rate tax" is neither regressive ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: [OT] Iraq
    ... The flat tax has been called a regressive tax, ... who has 85% of ten times that income. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Buying Second Home - Transferring Ownership to Partner?
    ... I am considering buying a flat for rental purposes. ... currently live with my partner - we have a joint ownership on the house ... buying the flat in my name - to avoid tax etc. ...
    (uk.finance)
  • Re: LDS influence on Utah Legislators
    ... The vast bulk of "flat tax" proposals tax only wages and not dividends, ... interest income, capital gains, rents, etc. ... >> Church wants and has communicated to the legislators with both direct ...
    (soc.religion.mormon)
  • Re: Excellent Article in this mornings Telegraph
    ... >>Basically it replaces the existing system of tax bands and allowances ... >>with a single flat rate and a single threshold at the bottom end. ... This kind of anomaly could be ironed out without a flat rate of income ... >>because you have a flat rate therefore all of these regulations, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)