Would you agree to abolishing the IRS and going with a flat tax?

[kentuck]

Do you think we would raise enough revenues to run this country?

Do you think some people would just skip paying taxes at all, if there was no enforcement mechanism?

What other programs do you think we would have to cut if there was a flat tax?

Would we ever have anything close to a balanced budget?

Do you think your position is in line with the Democratic Party?

[NMDemDist2]

1. no. n/t

[rdharma]

2. No! nt

[CBGLuthier]

3. No

Nothing progressive about the flat tax.

[bigwillq]

4. No

to the first question.

No need to answer the rest.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. No. It's extremely regressive.

[Gothmog]

6. No

The flat tax is a horrible idea that gives a large tax cut to the rich

[HappyMe]

7. NO.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. only if that flat tax had a steep positive slope

so basically....no

[Vincardog]

9. no, no, all of them, no, no

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. Only if by flat you mean "at an angle upward"

Do you think we would raise enough revenues to run this country?

Not unless we slashed the military to the bone

Do you think some people would just skip paying taxes at all, if there was no enforcement mechanism?

Absolutely

What other programs do you think we would have to cut if there was a flat tax?

Oil and big ag subsidies to start

Would we ever have anything close to a balanced budget?

Of course, but not on a flat tax and not with Republicans in control

Do you think your position is in line with the Democratic Party?

Like many liberals, I feel the Democratic Party has fallen out of line with ME, not the other way around.

[on point]

11. No

[reformist2]

12. A flat tax on total wealth? YES.

[kelly1mm]

34. Wouldn't a tax based on wealth only promote consumption and discourage savings? For example

if you have 2 people making $100,000 per year and person A spends every dollar for 10 years, at the end he would have $0 wealth and $0 tax. Person B only spends 50% of her income and thus at the end of 10 years has wealth of $500,000. Are you saying that person A who made exactly the same as person B over the same period of time pay $0 and person B pay $????

[FrodosPet]

40. Is spending worse than hoarding?

Person A has paid out a lot that generates jobs, while person B is hoarding their money?

[kelly1mm]

47. It can be, depending on how you see things. But do you not see a problem

with 2 people making the exact same income over the exact same period of time paying drastically different taxes (let's assume they both rent, are single, no dependents, no deductions)? Further, if you are environmentally conscious, wouldn't you want to discourage consumption?

[reformist2]

64. I don't see a problem. A poor person who wins a million should not pay the same as a rich person.

[reformist2]

65. It would be a good thing for everyone if the rich spent more of their money.

[kelly1mm]

66. Unless you see the link between consumption and environmental degredation. Maybe they

would spend the money that would otherwise be taxed on Hummers and speedboats or more likely, just more plastic crap from China.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. Hell NO!

Let those who benefitted the most...pay the largest amount.....as it should be.

Progressive Tax system all the way.

[hatrack]

14. Not just no, but FUCK NO!

(Not aimed at you!)

[Warren DeMontague]

15. No

[closeupready]

16. No. Absolutely not.

If anything, we need to make our current system MUCH more progressive.

[dwilso40641]

17. NO

[Cleita]

18. NO!

[geek tragedy]

19. fuck no nt

[bemildred]

20. No. nt

[badtoworse]

21. I'd be fine with that

If EVERYBODY actually paid, I don't think the rate would need to be that high to raise the income tax revenue we get now. We might even wind up with more.

You would obviously have to have enforcement.

If everyone had to pay, then everyone would have skin in the game as to government spending which would be a good thing.

[Wounded Bear]

22. No. nt

[upaloopa]

23. Have a flat tax of say 15% and a property tax of 10%

If we are ever to turn around the wealth disparity in this country you need to tax wealth and use the money to grow the middle and lower classes again.
A tax on earned income means nothing to those who live on investment income.
All of the people need to thrive in the economy.
A flat tax is just another way to pile wealth up on one side. Wage earners will pay tax and the wealthy won't and they have access to the treasury which wage earners don't. Corporate welfare should end and a wealth tax should be levied.
And tax all wealth no matter what country it is in.

[kentuck]

45. What about the 7.5% FICA tax that ends at @$113,000??

Would those that make more than $113,000 per year have their flat tax adjusted likewise?

[upaloopa]

48. That is for Social Security. It is a good idea to

Keep Social Security funded.
But a flat tax without a means of sharing the wealth will not be beneficial to middle and lower class.
One problem we have is not enough jobs for those that want to work. If somehow a household could make it on one income again there would be less unemployment since there would be less people wanting to work but that would require government picking up the tab for part of the costs families have to pay out of pocket.

[kentuck]

61. Isn't it included in the general fund?

Like all other revenues, since the government automatically borrows it to meet all revenue needs?

[upaloopa]

62. It is a loan

[seveneyes]

84. FICA should not have a cutoff limit

Those making more than 113k need to keep paying. In fact, double it after every 500k over 113k.

[pnwmom]

59. No flat tax rate, period. And a 10% property tax rate will hurt all families who've managed

to buy homes, so that doesn't make sense either.

[gerogie2]

24. That is lunacy

You're going to charge a person a 25% income tax making $25k per year and also a 25% tax on a person making $2M+ per year?

[jzola]

25. NO!

[hunter]

26. NO NO NO!

Shame on you.

The poor out to pay nothing, the middle class a fair share, the wealthy much more than that, and the uber-wealthy ought to be taxed out of existence.

[GoneOffShore]

27. No - a flat tax is regressive.

[cthulu2016]

28. fuck no

[lob1]

29. I'm against a flat tax. But the game is already rigged.

The rich already pay less in taxes than we do. It came out a few months ago that Romney hasn't paid taxes in years. I sure have.

[ZombieHorde]

30. No. nt

[KamaAina]

31. 'A'ole makemake!

I do not want (that).

The 1%ers would be paying their share* out of the $$$$ they would otherwise be socking away in the Cayman Islands, while the rest of us would be paying ours instead of buying stuff like, you know, food, gasoline, and heating oil.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. No

[SomethingFishy]

33. Nah.. but get rid of the income tax

and raise the sales tax. Especially on luxury items. You want a yacht? 75% sales tax. A house over a million? 75% sales tax. The way I see it is rich people really aren't paying shit in taxes. So tax them on what they like to do. Spend money.

Oh and no sales tax on food.

Truth is.. I don't know shit about economics..

[Swede Atlanta]

35. It depends on what you mean by "flat tax"

If you mean everyone, except for low wage earners, would pay the same % with few if any exemptions, etc. the answer is No, No and Hell No.

If you mean that all individuals earning at a certain level would pay the same % with few or no exemptions you might have something there.

But anything other than graduated rates is highly regressive. Why should someone earning say $50K a year pay the same % of their earned income as someone who makes say $3M?

One thing I would like to see is a graduated tax rate on capital gains, the more you earn in capital gains the higher the tax rate. It is one thing to tax someone who earns a little on a 401K, Roth, IRA, etc. @ 15% but if investment returns represent 75% of someone's income then that should be taxed at a higher rate.

Why should we tax doing nothing (sitting back and letting the money roll in) at a lower rate than working? It has never made sense to me but I understand investment bankers have put their fingerprints on the tax code. Not to mention hedge fund managers.

[spin]

36. My son in law favors a national sales tax and the elimination of the IRS. ...

He points out that this would garner revenue from people such as drug dealers and those who work and are paid under the table.

I mentioned that this would be largely unfair to the poor and essential items such as groceries would have to be exempted. He agreed.

We can tax the hell out of the rich but they always find ways to avoid taxes using existing loopholes and influencing congress to pass new ones.

[Gothmog]

43. The so-called Fair Tax is also a joke

The national sales tax goes by the misleading and false name of the "fair tax." This tax is also very very regressive and would be a large tax cut for the rich

[Pretzel_Warrior]

54. not if we start throwing them in prison for doing it

[spin]

69. How do we do that if they use the legal loopholes they helped to create to avoid paying taxes? (n/t)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

74. Close loopholes. Imprison accordingly

[spin]

75. Great idea except that the rich contribute to the campaigns of those we elect ...

and consequently can push through legislation that provides them with loopholes to exploit.

Of course that leads to a discussion over campaign financing laws which currently allow the wealthiest in our nation to have far more influence over our laws than the average citizen has.

Perhaps that is why the rich are getting richer and the middle class faces extinction.

The question is how can we correct this problem? We can vote for candidates who promise to make real change but when elected they often forget those promises.

I really do not have a solution. I do feel that if we continue down this path we will lose what made our nation great and instead become like most nations in history where the rich were privileged and the poor were oppressed.

While that works out well for those in power and especially for the rich it often leads to a revolution.

The rich should be aware that greed has consequences. Better to share their wealth and work to insure that a strong middle class exists in our nation rather than to exploit their workers for profit. By doing so they may actually increase their wealth over the long run and they will live in a far better nation.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. The flat tax sounds like a bad idea

And what would having a flat tax do that would enable us to abolish the IRS? We would still need an agency to collect and distribute the tax revenue, wouldn't we?

[Chan790]

38. Answers.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

As many as the GOP could get away with, thus allowing them to lower the tax.

Nobody really wants one, they just want to lip-service one as a campaign issue.

Sadly, I'm not sure anymore. At one time, I know it was...but then the Democratic party became a bastion of a lot of scoundrels that were no longer in-line with a radicalizing GOP. Alas, we didn't make it clear they were not welcome in the Democratic party either.

[Auntie Bush]

39. Absolutely NOT! The poor get screwed and the rich do better. nt my 2 cents.

[CK_John]

41. A flat tax would have to be at least a 29% tax on every item sold, food, clothing, everything sold

just to keep the minimum services.

[The Magistrate]

42. This, Sir Is a Not Just No But Fuck No Proposition

[Bettie]

44. Nope

Answers to your other questions:
Enough Revenue? Nope.
Would people skip paying if there were no enforcement? Yes indeed
Programs to be cut: anything that doesn't have 'military' behind it.
Balanced budget? never
Yes, I do think my position is in line with the Dem party.

[tosh]

46. This OP needs a POLL.

NO!

[TheKentuckian]

49. No and fuck no. I don't get the get rid of the IRS piece either

don't we still need the money accounted for and collected regardless of the rate? If you are talking a flat rate honor system, I'd submit the possibility that you of the need to pass after puff, puff.

Are there any examples of such a system, how did it go if so? Even ancient people had tax collection. Seems fanciful.

[NightWatcher]

50. NO, A consumption tax would choke the poor/middle while allowing the rich to roll their

money over and over without any taxes ever coming out

[jmowreader]

51. I'll play

1. There are two different issues here. I wouldn't agree to a flat tax (for one it's regressive, for another the Republicans would insist on their favorite starve-the-beast thing, "revenue neutrality." For some reason the loopholes they close NEVER add as much revenue as the tax rate reduction eliminates. And I wouldn't agree to abolishing the IRS either - someone has to collect the tax. That's an issue I have with the Unfair Tax advocates, who also want to get rid of the IRS: whether we tax income, wealth, consumption, toenail-polish color, or body temperature, SOMEONE has to collect the money!

2. No. Not unless the rate was really high.

3. Of course they would.

4. Most of them. We'd lose at least one branch of the military. We'd lose all our social spending. We'd lose all our regulatory agencies. We'd have to change the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Caveat Emptor." And I don't think that would fix the budgetary problem!

5. No. To put our macroeconomic problem in microeconomic terms, you don't celebrate buying a new house by quitting your job.

6. I hope so.

[winter is coming]

52. NO. Flat taxes are a simplistic approach that shafts the 99% and favors the rich. n/t

[BillZBubb]

53. NOT A CHANCE!

A "flat" tax is both fiscally and economically a very bad idea. But, the rich will love it!

[kentuck]

55. Now that we have that settled.

[Captain Stern]

56. Any tax plan that includes "abolishing the IRS" as a positive is already starting out silly.

Whether it's a 'flat tax' plan or a 'fair tax' plan or whatever, the IRS won't be abolished...it will just change names.

There has to be an agency that collects taxes, does the paperwork, and investigates tax fraud (regardless of which formulas we use to determine tax liability)

[shenmue]

57. No

It's an unworkable libertarian scheme that tilts toward the rich.

[pnwmom]

58. We wouldn't have a balanced budget without a tax rate that was much too high

for ordinary working families.

We need a more progressive system, not a less progressive one.

[JJChambers]

60. I prefer a staggered tax

0-50k/year, 0% tax rate
50k-100k, 15% tax rate
100k-200k, 30% tax rate
200k - 1m, 50% tax rate
1m+, 75% tax rate

No loop holes, deductions, etc. If you make 50k, you pay 0%. If you make 75k, you pay 15% of 25k, etc.

[proudretiredvet]

83. I do agree with this with one stipulation.

That the first fifty thousand is tax free and that you start paying taxes on anything over that amount.

[JJChambers]

87. Yes, exactly.

Someone making 50k would pay 0 in taxes.

Someone making 75k would pay 0 on the first 50, and 15% of the 25k over 50.

Someone making 1m would pay:

First 50k @0%= 0
50k-100k @15%= $7,500
100k-200k @30% = $30,000
200k - 1m @50% = $400k

Total tax bill for someone making 1m even would be $437,500

Someone making 2m even would pay 75% on the second million, raising their tax bill on 2m to $1,187,500.

[old guy]

63. No.

[XRubicon]

67. No, try again...

[Doctor_J]

68. The "Flat tax" is extremely regressive. Nearly as much so as the "sales tax only"

[TroglodyteScholar]

70. Not no...

...but FUCK no.

[Earth_First]

71. Shit no! nt

[Trailrider1951]

72. Sure, absolutely!

Tax everything, ALL income from any source, wages, dividends, capital gains, interest, ALL income at 25%.

All income that is above the first $70,000. If you get a total of less than $70,000 from all sources, it should be EXEMPT from income tax. Those people getting less than $70,000 still pay plenty of taxes in sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, etc. Makes sense to me.

[badtoworse]

89. That's not flat

The fundfamenatal idea of a flat tax is that EVERBODY pays.

[quaker bill]

73. absolutely not

[Ed Suspicious]

76. No.

[cui bono]

77. Nope.

[RedstDem]

78. yes, but...

It would be a plateau tax, starting at zero and climbing gradually till it flattened, so no, lol

[seveneyes]

79. Personally

I want the richest to pay more. If a flat tax lets me and family keep more of what we earn, then sure, why not?

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. fuck no. n/t

[liberalmuse]

81. Heeeeell NO!

The people who benefit most from our capitalist system should pay the most taxes. They mine the commons, taking finite resources from our lands, pollute the air and water and leave a footprint that is hundreds of times heavier than the average persons. They would not be able to gather this much wealth in any other country, yet they would rather corrupt and destroy our democratic republic than pay their taxes. Even at the rates they were paying during the Eisenhower era, they would have enough to live a life of luxury many times over. Any one of them attempting to hide away their money to avoid taxes should be divested of all rights of doing business in the U.S.

[sakabatou]

82. No

[Benton D Struckcheon]

85. No, you need progressivity.

You can even make a consumption tax progressive; here in Joisey food, clothing and medicine are exempted from sales taxes, which is one way of doing it.
Collect it on whatever you want, but make it progressive.

[WillyT]

86. No !!!

[MindMover]

88. we already have a flat tax in ten states ...

The highest being Pennsylvania with 7% ...

I think a progressive flat tax or a hall rabushka flat tax could work much better than current system ...

[frwrfpos]

90. no what we need is a wealth tax

over a million dollars tax at 15% and progress all the way up. If you have a billion dollars you need to have a wealth tax of 80%

[krispos42]

91. We'd still need somebody to process the tax returns

And corporate taxes are quite complex.


However, a flat tax of 70% with a standard deduction of 4x the annualized minimum wage would be an excellent thing, I think, for personal income. It would put upward pressure on the minimum wage and downward pressure on the millionaires and billionaires.

Oh, and unearned income would be taxed the same as earned income.

$7.25 x 40 hours/week x 52 weeks/year = $15,080/year

4 x $15,080 = $60,320 = standard deduction for a taxpayer filing as "single".

$120,640 for a married taxpayer.

Plus the usual deductions for kids, mortgage interest, etc.

It would be a substantial tax cut for a huge segment of the population, a slight cut or raise for a small segment, and a substantial hit on a tiny slice of people like professional athletes and actors and high corporate executives.




Oh, and I'd make a law saying that if you receive any company stock as pay, either as part of your pay package or for bonuses, you can only sell 10% of the shares per calender year.

[truebluegreen]

92. No!

[Euphoria]

93. No.

[cherokeeprogressive]

94. I think it could work actually.

NO federal income tax for singles making under $50k
NO federal income tax for married couples making under $100k

No deductions except per child, ending at X $k (to be determined)

Figure out an acceptable rate for singles above the zero tax rate
Figure out an acceptable rate for couples above the $100k mark

NO cap for SS, and means test for drawing at age 70.

BUT... Three terms for Congresscritters, and ONE six year term for Senators offset so one Senator is up for election every three years.

[donheld]

95. Bad Idea. Really Really bad idea

Do you really think you should pay the same tax rate as the Koch Brothers?