Flat Tax?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

FT effectively shifts a great deal of the tax burden from the uberrich to the poor and middle class. (Edit: That is, if this legislation went through, I guarantee this would be the result. The exemptions he mentions would disappear, and people making 10,000 a year would be taxed at a higher 17% rate.)


[/ QUOTE ]

On what do you base your "guarantee"?

Also, aren't the basic exemptions at present higher than they were a decade or two ago? What is it now, $7800 dollars or so? So why would Forbes' propsed 13K-ish personal exemption disappear if the exemption we already get hasn't disappeared but has rather increased slightly over the years?

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
On what do you base your "guarantee"?


[/ QUOTE ]

On historical precedent of conservative previous tax plans.

For example, the Bush tax plan sold as good for the middle/lower class, really shifted more of the tax burden to them. The ole Repub bait and switch.

Forbes is disingenuous with the 'simplification of the tax code' angle.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
You're making two errors:

1) Presuming that I am not interested in the question I'm asking. What if I haven't looked up the websites of conservative think tanks about this because I'm not that interested...but I still am interested in exploring the idea a bit further especially on this forum? If I had posted on another forum a query about whether insects have brains, in a relevant thread, would you say: "I doubt you're really interested, or you would have taken the time to research it elsewhere." Sheesh. Who put vinegar in your coffee this morning anyway?

2) Presuming that Forbes is "dishonestly" pitching the flat tax as a way to simplify the tax code. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. And maybe the flat tax would help to simplify the tax code (with a higher exemption level than at present but fewer deductions)--or maybe it wouldn't. My guess is the former, but how are we to know either way for sure based only on the two columns posted thus far in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I am not doubting your interest in the subject matter. I am doubting that Steve Forbes has actually formulated any realistic way of simplifying the tax code. My suggestion of looking at conservative think tanks was sincere.

2) From reading his article I think it is pretty obvious that Forbes is not being completely honest about what he wants to accomplish with the flat tax.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, the Bush tax plan sold as good for the middle/lower class, really shifted more of the tax burden to them. The ole Repub bait and switch.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it did lower the taxes the middle class and poor have to pay. In my view that IS good for them.

[ QUOTE ]
Forbes is disingenuous with the 'simplification of the tax code' angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe.

[warlockjd]

It lowered taxes for everyone, but it shifted more of the total tax burden to the lower and middle classes.

Surely we can agree on this fact?

[Zeno]

Kinsley's article was almost all puff. The man should be put on a raft with limited supplies and towed out to sea, where the Good Lord can determine his fate. If sharks chew off both his arms, then I would consider that a just punishment for his crimes against journalistic integrity.

1.) Income is not simple to determine. This revelation is not all that stupendous. Does he offer any resolutions?

2. Flat tax is roughly equal to lower tax. I find nothing wrong with this if it corresponded to a reduction in spending by the idiots in congress, not that any of us are holding are collective breathes on that score, or that such a reasonable course would be implemented by the criminals we elect to the Federal Legislative Body.

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of the complexity in the tax system is there because of special privileges granted to special people who have special influence on not so special legislators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't there a Saturday Night Live character that used to say 'Now isn't that special'!

[ QUOTE ]
But simple is not always better....But Forbes' plan seems too simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be worth a try? At least starting simple, it may acutally come out of the legislative process as a more or less sane change, as opposed to trying to simplfy or adjust the existing tax code we have. I have dealt with our present tax code, as I am sure you and also many others that post here have, and it is a convoluted mess.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

Yes, but so what? That is the least important part of the entire picture.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
It lowered taxes for everyone, but it shifted more of the total tax burden to the lower and middle classes.

Surely we can agree on this fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but so what? That is the least important part of the entire picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

My my are we at opposite poles.

To me this is obviously the most important part of the entire picture. Class warfare at its finest.

[MMMMMM]

I believe it is least important, because:

1) middle or lower classes paying less = still better for them

2) economic growth helps them too, and lowering taxes for everyone spurs economic growth

3) look at the results of other countries who have implemented the flat tax (as referenced in the first article)..

Bottom line is that if you're getting richer it shouldn't much bother you if your neighbor is keeping ahead of you. So you're both getting richer. Great.

[Cyrus]

"I used to deduct condoms!"

-- David Lee Roth
playing himself in The Sopranos, series 5.