"Sales Tax" is showing up twice because I voted before I changed the font to bold type. That'll teach me to edit polls. Sorry about that.

O.K., who thinks we need a Graduated Income Tax and Sales Tax? There's a whole lotta taxin' goin' on somewhere.

Stevie:

Flat tax, between 4-6%, across both corporations and citizens, no deductions. Sales taxes are controlled usually by the States, and they can't even agree to disagree. Usuing a flat tax, then allowing the feds to rebate a portion of that amount back to the states, would give everyone more capital than they could spend per year. (Well, okay...maybe not. Legislators can spend worse than a Tranny with a new Credit Card! ;D)

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I agree with you about the actual rates. I'm thinking in the area of up to 5%.

but it's the percentage of total remainder!!!!!
a flat tax is a punitive tax.
i studied economics too!

so if 10 percent across the board is acceptable, who pays the most from an acceptable disposable income, and who pays the least.!?
it is regressive and unacceptable.

here endeth the sermon.

I prefer the sales (consumption) tax. It helps keeps the government out of our personal affairs, and I consider it the fairest way to tax citizens.

Heather--

It's precisely the fact that everyone has to pay the same rate--regardless of income, regardless of business or personal--why I like the flat tax concept.

6% of $10 is $.60...6% of $10,000 is $600....6% of $1,000,000 is $60,000...and so forth. So, let's say I made $38,000 last year. (In actuality, I did, give or take a few hundred.) I lost roughly $11,000 in taxes: fed, state, and local, plus Social Security, Medicare, etc.  

Even at a 6% flat rate to fund everything, and knowing that richer people have to pay the same rate...I would have paid $2280. That's a sizeable chunk to keep in my purse. What could you do with an extra $8720?

Corporations that make millions and billions of dollars off their products...would only "lose" 6% of the profits. (If they lose money and not show a profit, then they ought not to be in business.)

I havn't figured out the property tax thing...but with a flat tax, would we even need one?

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura 
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

As a capitalist, I'm against any form of corporate welfare. Businesses should earn money by providing goods, services, and/or entertainment, not by begging for government handouts. Corporate entities can pay taxes just like individual citizens.

Now, on to the controversy...

I'm against any form of income tax under any circumstances. I don't want the government to know where I work, what I do, and certainly not how much I make. It's not the government's business, but government agencies make it their business when they require me to disclose my income. Big brother knows way too much about us already, and there's no way to collect income taxes without inviting the government into our personal lives. I don't like having a national ID number, and our social security numbers (in the USA) are used for that very purpose. If we get rid of the federal income tax and social security, we won't need those numbers anymore.

Also, the cost of administration of those agencies is huge. It takes an enormous agency (the IRS in the USA) to process all of those tax returns every year and to perform audits. That's a big expense we could cut from the budget if we were to do away with the federal income tax. Collecting sales taxes is much easier.

Some have claimed the sale tax and the flat income tax are regressive, but I say the graduated income tax is punitive. Why should we punish those who earn more money and discourage them from making more? The poor are not being hurt by paying an equal percentage. That's an illusion. Once again, it's no one else's business how much money I have. We shouldn't be comparing one citizen's ability to pay to another's. We can all afford to pay a small percentage of our earnings in taxes. Whether it's 5% of $10 or 5% of $1000, the equal percentage is what make the sales tax (and flat income tax) fair. If you can't afford to pay a small percentage, then you've got problems on your end that need your immediate attention. I don't support individual welfare for the same reasons I don't support corporate welfare. It's not the government's place to offer handouts.

The graduated income tax represents the redistribution of wealth, from those according to their abilities to those according to their needs. It is socialism, plain and simple. Unfortunately, class envy in the USA keeps many from seeing the absolute fairness of a flat rate system, be it based on consumption or earnings. Then, there are those who actually like socialism, and call it what it is. With those individuals, I simply have to say we have different opinions on the type of economic structures we prefer for our society.

I'm a capitalist because I want economic control over my own life, and I want the same for everyone else. I'm the one who gets up and goes to work to earn my money, and I don't want the government telling me how to spend, save, invest, or donate it. I'll take care of that myself. I certainly want to do my part to help pay for our society's infrastructure, but beyond that, my money belongs to me, and it's not the place of others to tell me I have too much or too little. I don't want a billionaire to pay my way just because he has more money than I do. I'm a citizen who enjoys the same rights as he does, and I'll pay my fair share of taxes, which should be an equal percentage of what everyone else pays.

For those who think the wealthy are getting off light in a flat rate system, that's simply not true. For someone who earns $1,000,000.00 per year, X% of $1,000,000.00 is much more than X% of Stevie's annual income. In fact, it's probably more than 100% of my income, so how can we say the rich aren't paying their fair share under a flat rate system? As long as we're serious about closing all of these silly loopholes, it will work.

As far as the actual rate is concerned, if the government can't get by on 5% or 10% of our sales or income, then the government is trying to do too much. I can see 10% during a world war, but otherwise, taxes shouldn't be above 5%.

I don't like property taxes, professional taxes, or wheel (automobile) taxes at all. Those sneaky little taxes at the local levels really stick it to the taxpayers. I would prefer that all revenue came from sales taxes at all levels of government, aside from legal fines/settlements and user fees for regulatory agencies (such as driver's license fees, hunting license fees, licensing fees for professionals who are directly regulated by the agencies charging the fees, etc.).

Naturally, my first choice is no taxes, but which of these tax plans would you prefer, assuming taxes are necessary? This could be on a national level or a state/provincial level (whatever applies to your country).


Sales Tax Only
Flat Income Tax Only
Flat Income Tax and Sales Tax
Graduated Income Tax Only
Graduated Income Tax and Sales Tax

i do believe that education is paramount. nobody should be forced to grow up without a knowledge of the whole world, but simply be allowed to adopt a bigotted self oppinionated perception......... maybe someone else could take this over... i feel i may be tooo vitriolic if i do....

In Utah, I pay $701/month for a large two-bedroom apartment and a storage locker.  Compared to California, this is cheap, but compared to Utah in 1990, it is exorbitant.  Rents have approximately doubled since then.  The problem is that population keeps increasing while available housing, especially in the water-deprived west, cannot keep up.  The concept of supply and demand dictates that housing costs will go up.  This is a difficult problem to solve - I don't have any answers.

Corporate corruption is nothing new.  Corporate leaders of today are nothing compared to those of the late 1800's.  At that time, they ran wild, nearly free of any government regulations.  The workers suffered, and when they tried to strike, they were brutally suppressed.  And this was at a time when schools taught the traditional Christian morality and values.  Greed is a powerful force, easily able to override a sense of morality in many people.  Corporate ethics must be written into law and strongly enforced, with strict criminal penalties for corrupt executives.  Basic morals should be taught in schools, of course in a way that does not promote particular religions.  Values such as honesty and integrity are (or should be) held by people of all religions or no religion at all.

Heather H.

nobody likes to pay taxes, however our governments could not function without them. I do think government in general doesn`t spend our tax money wisely and should be held more accountable.
I also contribute to education even though I never had children and while I dont mind putting money into the school system I would like to see something positive coming out of it, a lot of the kids leaving school around here can`t even read and write.

I have not seen anything here about property tax.  What does everyone think about that?

I have always found property tax and the way it is used to be extremely distasteful.  The revenue collected through property taxes should be collected by some other method.  Sometimes, people who own property, such as a house, but have little or no income cannot afford the tax and they lose their property to the government.  Effectively, a property tax means that you do not own your property - you rent it from the government.  Also, property tax is often used to fund school systems.  Since property is worth more in some places than in others, this causes some schools to receive better funding than others.  School funding should be more equitably distributed.

Heather H.

...something must also be done about wages, housing costs, health care costs, and corporate corruption.

Okay...on this we agree! ;D I'll come back to this in a sec.

I still think that a flat tax is the way to go; the richer will have to pay more because they earned more. Since this is collected at the top of one's paycheck, you don't even see it, much like taxes today. 'Nuff said.

I totally agree about wages, housing costs, and health care costs. These have gotten quite of of line...at $7/hour (starting or entry level position wage in the Evansville Tri-State area), and presuming a 40 hour work week...that's $14,560--before taxes. If poverty is anything less than $18,000, than you need to earn $8.66/hour at minimum just to get to the poverty threshold. And that does not cover your taxes at all. Presuming a basic loss rate of roughly 32%, you actually need to earn $26,500 to cover your tax burden as well...which is $12.75 an hour. Therefore, minimum wage is a joke.

Housing costs have been obscene for years. When a studio in my neighborhood goes for $300/month, and this isn't exactly the best section of town I'm talking here...you get the idea. And healthcare costs are becoming so bad that there are those who are opting to not have health insurance, because they cannot afford it. And Goddess help you if you're over 70.

Now...as for corporate corruption...
(Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!) http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/devil-laugh.gif

This is what happens when you yank any sort of moral underpinning out of the fabric of a society and attempt to teach a "morally neutral" position in the schools. Many of these execs, especially those who went through school in the mid to late 1960's through most of the early 1980's, have what we like to call in my business "situational ethics." In other words: something is okay becuase (a)everyone is doing it (thus it must be right or okay), or (b) this is okay for me to do, but it is wrong for you to do (or vice-versa--it is an expediency thing).

Because there is no longer an agreed upon basis for morality, than it's okay for shady accounting practices, sloppy management techniques, lying to Congress (or pleading the 5th repeatedly), and easy-out bankruptcy. And, since the jail sentences are ridiculous (if there's one at all) and thus no real reason to stay in line...then if I can do something and get away with it, and if it boosts the bottom line...it must be okay or right for me to do so. In short...we've sold our soul to the Company Store.

I'm not advocating a return to the 1950's way of doing things. Not at all. Trannies were shunned, Epileptics were locked away in Insane Asylums, and things were repressed waaaay too much. So the question now is: "How do we fix this mess, Ollie?"  ???

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura 
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I am in favor of a graduated income tax, but one that is simplified considerably and set up in a way that makes more sense.

The reason I believe this way is that I question the fairness of applying the same tax rate to someone who is barely getting by as to someone who is doing quite well.  The tax rates should be set up as follows.  There should be a three-tiered system:  little or no tax for income up to a level considered to be poverty; a moderate rate for income above that and up to a level considered to be a comfortable living; and a somewhat higher, but still reasonable, rate on income considered to be luxury.  The transition points should be indexed to inflation.  There should be no deductions - the government has no business encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors by this method.

I have thought about this a great deal, and I have gone back and forth a little.  In the end, I decided that I believe a graduated tax rate to be fair, provided the rates at all levels are reasonable, because those who have done well in our society can certainly afford to give a little more back.  After all, they have taken care of their basic needs quite well, so they can afford to have a larger cut taken out of the income that exceeds what is needed to survive.

A sales tax in addition may be appropriate, especially if the lowest tax bracket is zero.  Everyone, even those of small means, should be obligated to contribute at least a token amount.  If the lowest tax bracket is not zero, perhaps 1% or so, then a sales tax might not be necessary.

State governments should collect taxes by the same method, adding a small amount onto the federal rate.  Local governments could either be funded from the state or a sales tax.

Business taxes should follow a similar concept.

Personal income should be considered as income regardless of the source, whether from employment, dividends, interest, or capital gains.  Capital gains could be spread out over the years which the asset was owned, so the income is not taxed at an excessive rate when the asset is sold.

So far, it looks like I am the liberal on this issue.  There must be others out there.  I would like to see other ideas.

Heather H.

I have to agree with many of Ricka's statements.  The elimination of the middle class is destabilizing in any society.  If tax policy can be used to counteract this trend, then it may be worth whatever perceived unfairness is present in the system.  I have noted with alarm the gradual erosion of the middle class in the United States; the gap between rich and poor is widening and the middle class is increasingly squeezed.  A progressive tax system will not necessarily stop this trend, but it will help to slow it.  But something must also be done about wages, housing costs, health care costs, and corporate corruption.

Heather H.