xhail said:But I wonder.If there was a flat tax would it be very low like say 10% or faily high for the lower income people like 25% or higher?My point was that there is no point in having a tax rate. I'm advocating a poll tax which means a flat tax <bamount. In the absense of evidence that a wealthier taxpayer costs the government more or benefits more, there is no way to justify anything but a poll tax. If Mr./Ms. Rich owes $100K, then so does Mr./Ms. Poor. This is the only fair approach. If a single taxpayer owes $10K, then a couple owes $20K.I do believe a flat tax rate is preferable to what we have. The numbers I've heard quoted by candidates are something like 0% for income below $30K and 19% for income above $30K. I believe this assumes no changes in FICA, because FICA taxes are insurance premiums and are treated separately.The problem is that, without reducing the role of government, the burden of government will not change meaningfully. A flat tax rate will put intense pressure on the fedgov to reduce the role of government, but they will attempt to pass laws to force states to assume those roles and they will attempt to shift roles over to the FICA umbrella where they can play with the rates to prevent failure of SS and medicare. Other taxes will still be levied in the form of "user fees". This is fine for national park entrances, if the fees go to park maintenance. It also makes sense for gasoline sales, if the taxes go to road construction/maintenance. The cigarette taxes and alcohol taxes can't really be called user fees, but they won't go away. There are numerous other fees and taxes within the congressional playground.4goneFool
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<