Fiscal Cliff (Page 3)

I'll even do you one better Drew... I can even agree with a progressive tax. In general I think everyone should pay the same, but am not totally opposed to a progressive system, just as long as it it not a wide margin. Like with income from 10-40%. 40 being what some would like. But sure, higher for luxury goods, OK. I mean I'm not paying it.

DOH!!! Here we go again...

But that then leads to the yacht and sports car lobbies (etc..) to try to get their products exempted for some some reason or another.

If you keep it the same across the board, no one product gets any special treatment.

Would it be any ONE item... or would 100,000 $1 items would also qualify for the luxury tax?

Again, where does the number come from? A little higher, a little lower, but based on what exactly? Are those numbers based on trying to maintain the same level of revenue as under the current tax system?

I say it applies to everyone; you have income, you pay tax.

Edited to separate responses.

Yeah I wonder that too. If everyone pays the same percentage regardless of income amount there has to be enough money to get that rate lower. Instead of getting a check for $6k from the gub for making $25k a year and having 2 kids. That person won't get a refund and instead will also pay whatever the rate is. That has to add a lot more people putting in rather than taking out. 

I'm sure it will also help reduce the poverty rate too. Which will of course lower the spending on low income assistance programs like food stamps, etc. It will also help improve the upward mobility that has been declining for the last 30 years in this country.

In that case sports car vendors would being to sell you the frame, engine, seats etc.. all separate to keep it under the $100k limit.  This has been proposed before with lots of loopholes.

Google is your friend. Do some research, I didn't just pick it out of my rear. It a pretty common number that has been used in the conversation.

And that is the other reason I don't like a flat tax... it is still tied to income. I leaves all those out under the table, and all those that just flat out cheat. And of course that all depends on what income is defined at and what is and is not left out.

http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2012/01/the-new-flat-tax-encourages-growth-and-job-creation

That one is 28%... but I have also seen proposals for a consumption tax... that replaces all tax... at 23%

That 28% flat tax replaces income and payroll taxes not just income tax.

edited to clarify.

Starve the Beast has been rumored ever since I started paying attention to politics in the early 90's

Ya, but that isn't going to happen. That is not what any flat tax proposal has wanted.... there are levels at which people are taxed and not taxed. Low income still can't pay taxes. Government assistance will not... what about retirees? No flat tax proposal has sought to implement a flat tax across the board on every individual on every dollar.

Most decry a flat tax because it does exactly what the progressive tax system tries to reduce... it shifts most revenue to low income/middle class and away from t he upper class.  The only thing good about a flat tax is that it sounds really simple, but it has a lot of problems, and it still comes down to details on who it covers and who it does not. One that I saw had an exemption up to $66K. Nothing below that amount is taxed.

Like it or not the burden will always be mostly on the middle class.  That, by sheer numbers, is where the money is.  You can confiscate the entire wealth of the top 1% and not cover the debt or even the deficit.  That is part of what makes the 47% number so detrimental, that means a large portion of the middle class pays little or nothing.

Like it or not, we all have to pay for what we get, and I don't think the vast majority of Americans have a problem with that.

I do not feel the rich should have to pay 40% tax... but we all know they do not. I do not have a problem with "some" progressiveness built into a tax system.

I think what many have a problem with is the shell game of our current tax system. It is completely shielded from any honest appraisal of who is paying what. The deductions and exclusions of what is and isn't covered is complete nonsense. Romney paying the taxes he does is not Romney's fault.. he is paying what the government wants him to pay. I certainly wish my income came from dividends. He was taxed on his income when he made it.

The other problem is just the level of government spending. If the American people actually knew what they were really paying for their total tax burden... if all the hidden taxes were exposed and they actually saw 40-50% of their income going for taxes... well I think there would be a push to cut some spending.

The flat tax has some problems. The Fair/Consumption/VAT tax is a little better approach. Still gives one tax, can still be progressive, and covers more people.

I agree 100% with most of what you say.

Again I would say a consumption vs a VAT for transparency reasons.

I'm not Googling anything, but thanks for your unbiased source. Oh wait... where's that sarc font again?

I'm with you on the VAT... just too easy to continue the shell game we have now. I say the middle class would have a cow if they had to pay a flat tax...well they would have a cow if they saw their true tax burden they pay today.

I mean just do away with all taxes that are hidden everywhere... and then just see a pay check for $2000 and see a net of $1000...they would have a cow... but that is exactly what is going on right now. But that $1000 would go pretty far and everything would be really cheap.

That's what makes me mad about our current mess... it is going to take huge spending cuts, huge tax increases, and throwing the current tax system out the window. That is what is so ridiculous with the "Fiscal Cliff"... it does not even come close to addressing the problems, the candidates for President and Legislature do not even come close to addressing the problems with their "plans"... but the media has a catchy phrase and everything rolls merrily along.

I agree with your sentiment if not the particulars. We do need a complete overhaul of the Federal financial system; how money comes in and how it goes out. Too bad it may not happen without a catastrophic event of a magnitude that would dwarf anything we've ever experienced. So, like never.  

Has nothing to do with the source, Forbes suggested a flat tax of 15%, but that was riding along with current stuff. It was the first one I found...feel free to find your own.

And as far as bias... do you really think the "Conservative" source is going to have a lower bias or a higher bias when it comes to taxing? If I give you a "conservative" proposal, common sense would say the liberal plan would be higher since they love all those wonderful programs.

My point is, I have looked into this subject before... other tax rates around the world that have flat taxes are anywhere from 20-40%. 26% isn't that crazy, it just sounds like it when spoken out loud to all those paying less than that in income tax. Flat Tax sounds nice, but there are plenty of problems with it... and many of those problems come from the Left about the rich not paying enough and the bottom end paying too much. If you want more information on the subject, feel free to go out and find it. I already have, I'm not a fan... and not because of the 26%

Or "Come On Apocalypse!!!"

That would resolve all the tax and fiscal issues pretty quick I think.

You fix spending problems by cutting spending. You fix revenue problems by raising revenue. We do not need to throw out the tax code to fix either of those problems. We need to throw out the tax code to fix the class warfare it promotes, to stop this shell game of hidden taxes and hidden spending, and so American's can actually see what Washington is doing. We need to fix the current system so that those with access to power do not keep giving themselves more breaks, and to include all the freeloaders not paying their share, or flat out cheating.

A flat tax will not accomplish most of that. A consumption tax will.

but that would eliminate hundreds (thousands?) of jobs

or should that not be sarc?  i'm not sure.

That is a good question.  If you want less of something you tax it but if you trade the income for the consumption tax would it really cause a drop in consumption which would cause a drop in employment.  My gut feeling is in the beginning, yes but that would equal out over time as we reached a new normal.