Progressive Taxation

[almaty 19]

...from an interview with Edward J. McCaffery

author of Fair Not Flat: How to Make the Tax System Better and Simpler

Q: There have been a variety of proposals for a flat tax on income—from folks like Congressman ####### Armey, Senator Arlen Specter, and presidential candidates Steve Forbes and Jack Kemp. How does your proposal differ from theirs?

McCaffery: My plan, the Fair Not Flat tax, is progressive. It won't raise tax rates on the middle classes to pay for tax reduction for the rich. You can get almost all of the benefits of these flat tax proposals—in terms of simplicity, economic efficiency, and the fairness of the tax base—without abandoning America's longstanding and sensible commitment to at least moderate progressivity in tax burdens. The wealthy can and should pay a bit more at the margins of their luxurious lifestyles.

This is precisely why the left will never go for a flat tax. To the left, the IRS and the tax collecting system isn't about funding the government but more about their social engineering goals. It's a form of socialism. Take from the rich and give to the poor. If they were interested in being fair then a straight flat tax would be what they want. I don't understand the driving need the left has to soak the rich at every opportunity. Unless it's old money, they worked hard and found a way to succeed. As a reward the left has painted a target on their back and put Velcro on the bottom of their purses so they can fund their latest feel good legislation.

A flat tax would also take away a large amount of the lefts power. They promise every "downtrodden" group they encounter some sort of government freebie as a way to get elected. Then they use class envy to justify a new tax on the "rich" to pay for it. Thats their M.O.. Play one class against the other to get elected and let the "rich" pay for it.

Right on Gary!!! You came to the rescue again.

of course i assume corporate support by the government is not an issue in your "socialism"

[GaryC 7]

of course i assume corporate support by the government is not an issue in your "socialism"

I thought we were talking about individual taxes. Corporate taxes is OT and a different thread.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

of course i assume corporate support by the government is not an issue in your "socialism"

I thought we were talking about individual taxes. Corporate taxes is OT and a different thread.

With all respect, that's a false dichotomy, Gary.

When talking about tax ideologies, you gotta look at the entire revenue picture. Corporations are a big piece of that.

[mawilson 2,133]

I disagree. Right now the wealthiest use many loopholes to avoid paying taxes. At 10% of my GROSS earnings I would pay less than I do under the current progressive system.

What are these loopholes that everyone keeps talking about?

I'm in the 33% Federal tax bracket and if there is a loophole I can use, I'd definitely like to know.

So, you actually pay 33% of every dollar you earn? If you do, fire your accountant.

No, of course not. Only the amount over $188,450 (as of 2006.)

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

...from an interview with Edward J. McCaffery

author of Fair Not Flat: How to Make the Tax System Better and Simpler

Q: There have been a variety of proposals for a flat tax on income—from folks like Congressman ####### Armey, Senator Arlen Specter, and presidential candidates Steve Forbes and Jack Kemp. How does your proposal differ from theirs?

McCaffery: My plan, the Fair Not Flat tax, is progressive. It won't raise tax rates on the middle classes to pay for tax reduction for the rich. You can get almost all of the benefits of these flat tax proposals—in terms of simplicity, economic efficiency, and the fairness of the tax base—without abandoning America's longstanding and sensible commitment to at least moderate progressivity in tax burdens. The wealthy can and should pay a bit more at the margins of their luxurious lifestyles.

This is precisely why the left will never go for a flat tax. To the left, the IRS and the tax collecting system isn't about funding the government but more about their social engineering goals. It's a form of socialism. Take from the rich and give to the poor. If they were interested in being fair then a straight flat tax would be what they want. I don't understand the driving need the left has to soak the rich at every opportunity. Unless it's old money, they worked hard and found a way to succeed. As a reward the left has painted a target on their back and put Velcro on the bottom of their purses so they can fund their latest feel good legislation.

A flat tax would also take away a large amount of the lefts power. They promise every "downtrodden" group they encounter some sort of government freebie as a way to get elected. Then they use class envy to justify a new tax on the "rich" to pay for it. Thats their M.O.. Play one class against the other to get elected and let the "rich" pay for it.

Right on Gary!!! You came to the rescue again.

of course i assume corporate support by the government is not an issue in your "socialism"

I'm not a supporter of corporate support at all.

[GaryC 7]

of course i assume corporate support by the government is not an issue in your "socialism"

I thought we were talking about individual taxes. Corporate taxes is OT and a different thread.

With all respect, that's a false dichotomy, Gary.

When talking about tax ideologies, you gotta look at the entire revenue picture. Corporations are a big piece of that.

Ok, if you insist. Unless the government is subsidizing a company then there is no such thing as "corporate welfare". Giving a tax break to one company over another is IMO wrong. So I guess I would extend the "flat tax" to all aspects of our tax code.

Before some of you start waving EXXON around as "proof" that the right is in their pockets remember that the left has given tax breaks to their own pet projects. All of it should be stopped and a straight flat tax for everyone should be instituted.

[mawilson 2,133]

This is precisely why the left will never go for a flat tax. To the left, the IRS and the tax collecting system isn't about funding the government but more about their social engineering goals. It's a form of socialism. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

I don't think that's the reason, Gary. As you know, the rich pay most of the taxes, and

are taxed at 35%. The poor contribute next to nothing. If we had a flat tax rate, it would

have to be close to 35%, anyway. Maybe 34%. Anything less than that, and the tax

revenue won't be anywhere near the numbers we have today.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

of course i assume corporate support by the government is not an issue in your "socialism"

I thought we were talking about individual taxes. Corporate taxes is OT and a different thread.

With all respect, that's a false dichotomy, Gary.

When talking about tax ideologies, you gotta look at the entire revenue picture. Corporations are a big piece of that.

Ok, if you insist. Unless the government is subsidizing a company then there is no such thing as "corporate welfare". Giving a tax break to one company over another is IMO wrong. So I guess I would extend the "flat tax" to all aspects of our tax code.

Before some of you start waving EXXON around as "proof" that the right is in their pockets remember that the left has given tax breaks to their own pet projects. All of it should be stopped and a straight flat tax for everyone should be instituted.

I agree with the flat tax in theory, but I don't see how you're ever going to get it passed into law in the pure form it needs to be in.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is precisely why the left will never go for a flat tax. To the left, the IRS and the tax collecting system isn't about funding the government but more about their social engineering goals. It's a form of socialism. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

I don't think that's the reason, Gary. As you know, the rich pay most of the taxes, and

are taxed at 35%. The poor contribute next to nothing. If we had a flat tax rate, it would

have to be close to 35%, anyway. Maybe 34%. Anything less than that, and the tax

revenue won't be anywhere near the numbers we have today.

And let's not neglect to mention the impact of that 35% rate on the wealthy vs the impact of that 35% on the poor.

IOW, any flat tax would have to be on the rich only.

[GaryC 7]

This is precisely why the left will never go for a flat tax. To the left, the IRS and the tax collecting system isn't about funding the government but more about their social engineering goals. It's a form of socialism. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

I don't think that's the reason, Gary. As you know, the rich pay most of the taxes, and

are taxed at 35%. The poor contribute next to nothing. If we had a flat tax rate, it would

have to be close to 35%, anyway. Maybe 34%. Anything less than that, and the tax

revenue won't be anywhere near the numbers we have today.

If you took out all the deductions and loopholes you can find a rate that maintains the revenues. If everyone from the richest to the poorest paid the same rate the percent wouldn't need to be in the 30's. It would be closer to 20%. I would have to do some searching to get a better number.

[Caladan 19]

To be honest, it's not just the left holding up the flat tax; the right's had the government for five solid years and didn't move a peep in that direction, presumably because the rich like their loopholes and the rich vote Republican.

[mawilson 2,133]

If you took out all the deductions and loopholes you can find a rate that maintains the revenues. If everyone from the richest to the poorest paid the same rate the percent wouldn't need to be in the 30's. It would be closer to 20%. I would have to do some searching to get a better number.

You have to ask yourself, what are you trying to achieve? Do you want to pay more or less?

If you want to pay less, to maintain the same tax revenue, someone would have to pay more.

If the idea is to tax the rich more so that the middle class could pay less, then how is it

different from the progressive tax system that's already in place?

Families earning less than $150,000 a year are already paying less than 20% in taxes

(note that the average tax rate is not the same as the tax bracket - I already explained

it here). Charging them 20% is not gonna make them happy.

[GaryC 7]

If you took out all the deductions and loopholes you can find a rate that maintains the revenues. If everyone from the richest to the poorest paid the same rate the percent wouldn't need to be in the 30's. It would be closer to 20%. I would have to do some searching to get a better number.

You have to ask yourself, what are you trying to achieve? Do you want to pay more or less?

If you want to pay less, to maintain the same tax revenue, someone would have to pay more.

If the idea is to tax the rich more so that the middle class could pay less, then how is it

different from the progressive tax system that's already in place?

Families earning less than $150,000 a year are already paying less than 20% in taxes

(note that the average tax rate is not the same as the tax bracket - I already explained

it here). Charging them 20% is not gonna make them happy.

I want to achieve true fairness and to eliminate the social engineering that goes on. The reason for taxes is to fund the government. Not to change society.

[Ban Hammer 14,794]

I want to achieve true fairness and to eliminate the social engineering that goes on. The reason for taxes is to fund the government. Not to change society.

it's the modern day robin hood syndrome

[homesick_american 1]

I want to achieve true fairness and to eliminate the social engineering that goes on. The reason for taxes is to fund the government. Not to change society.

it's the modern day robin hood syndrome

ROFLMAO

What, pray tell, do you think the United States would be like without federal income taxes to fund not only social programs but corporate welfare as well? Taxes subsidize a lot of manufacturing jobs in the US, not to mention agriculture. Yeah, go ahead and take it away...it'll be the 1930s all over again.