There is no flat tax that has been proposed that even comes close to being revenue neutral. It doesn't exist. There isn't anything. Without capital gains your taxes would have to shoot through the roof. Do you want a tax increase to approximately 25% + state taxes + sales taxes? Here, tell me your income and let's run some numbers for you. I have found my calculator and taken a short online course which has now taught me how to use it. I had trouble with the clear-entry key, but I have now mastered that. I can even spell "EGGO" upside down with it. I have also stopped licking it as I have been told that it is not a fruit roll-up.
That does NOT mean a flat tax could not be revenue neutral. Combine the right RATE along with including capital gains as income and your arguments/objections are nothing but biased BS.
Alright, that's not exactly a flat tax, but let's run with that. It still means that your taxes will massively increase. What do you pay now? Let's run through the numbers, and let's assume that break even is 17% + capital gains as income + sales taxes + property taxes. In 1994: "The Treasury Department releases an extensive computer analysis of the Armey flat tax (relying heavily on Hall and Rabushka's 1983 book for details that are lacking in Armey's bill). In "An Analysis of a Flat-Rate Consumption Tax," Treasury finds that at a 17% rate, Armey's plan will lose $244 billion a year in revenues, assuming retention of the earned-income tax credit for the working poor, or $219 billion annually if the EITC is eliminated (as CTJ had assumed). Thus, despite a somewhat different estimating methodology, Treasury's finding is virtually identical to CTJ's September 1994 estimate. Treasury notes that (obviously) it would take a much higher tax rate (25% to 26%) or much lower exemptions than Rep. Armey has proposed for his plan to break even. And under a revenue-neutral Armey flat tax, Treasury concludes, the vast majority of American families will pay much higher taxes, while the very rich will get enormous tax cuts."
Yes, god forbid everyone be treated equally... Of course they make the assumption that if taxes are changed that everyone will keep earning at the same rate they currently are, which is utterly false of course...
At the rate and details that you insist on using maybe. Although I'm not necesarily opposed to a consumption tax I was referring to an income tax. Are they not different? In your 16 year old study elimination of the earned-income tax credit alone would make up for most of the short fall. Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm primarily interested in a simplified/fair tax code. If you're scared shitless the "rich" are getting a tax break, once again, I'd have no issue with a graduated/sliding scale flat rate(s). I have yet to see anything you've presented that convinces me a flat tax properly administered necesarily has to mean less revenues or more taxes for the average tax payer.
Exactly. A pal of mine, who has substantial AUM, just moved from NYC to Hong Kong. He said he's loving it and it really made him begin to understand the shortcomings of the West. That we are entirely too over bureaucratic. That everything takes so much legislation and red tape to get done, how everything is so over-legalized. He marveled at the fact that the ENTIRE HONG KONG TAX CODE was about 25 pages long.... And as any traveler to the area knows, they don't have police on the HK side of the border having to keep people out of mainland China, but they have an army on the Chinese side trying to keep Chinese out of Hong Kong...
Nobody is "scared shitless" except of paying more and having yet higher deficits, and your ad-homs are unnecessary (and quite dull). If you're going to try and insult me, try something about my mother. She's quite the whore, so I'm told. Also according to others, apparently I like to have sex with goats. According to my link, which is about the flat tax, if you eliminate the EITC that means an even BIGGER increase in taxes for almost everybody. Again, a graduated/sliding scale (ie. a "progressive" tax system) is not a flat tax. Nothing wrong with you wanting a simplified tax system -- in fact there's many good reasons why a simplified system would be a good idea, but a flat tax cannot work.
Most Americans are brain dead when it comes to the relationship between the US Treasury and the people who live here. It's not about how much the government "needs". It's about what the people need. It's not the government's money. It's your money! The United States government will always "need" more, more, more. This arbitrary theft from the people will stop one day. Maybe not in your lifetime, but one day the people will say no more! (We gotta have a balanced budget amendment.) Now, as to the topic of the thread: (and excuse me for being on topic) If you believe global warming isn't real, then I can only assume that you do believe in the Tooth Fairy.