Do You belive in Equal Treatrment per

[stuckincincy]

Then explain why one suffers a higher federal tax rate than another.

 

Anyone?

[Albany,n.y.]

I'll play Devil's Advocate, because I think your question and implied flat tax fly in the face of basic economics needed to effectively run a country's budget. You need enough money in your budget to fund government spending. I know that certain people don't want the government to run, but that's just not realistic.

 

Taking your argument to it's extreme, equal treatment means everyone makes the same wage. So instead of it being equal tax rates, lets make it all money above the determined national comfort wage gets taken from you. Say it's $35,000. So if you make $35,000 or under you don't get taxed. If you make $100,000 you get taxed $65,000 etc. That's truly equal treatment, it's also communism.

While we're at it I want my assessment lowered to the same as the shack down the road. I want equal treatment on my property taxes, since we both own homes.

 

Equal treatment has nothing to do with traditional taxation. They pay a lot more in other countries and the model is that those who can afford to pay a bigger share than those who earn less. It is how federal and local taxes have always been. Why, because if you reduce revenue to the level of the flat tax advocates, you go bankrupt.

[IUBillsFan]

While we're at it I want my assessment lowered to the same as the shack down the road. I want equal treatment on my property taxes, since we both own homes. 

58121[/snapback]

 

In this case I bet your assessment RATE is the same. Just like your sales tax, SS tax, ect they are all the same rate for everyone.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

The VAT tax brings high black market activity.

 

The progressive tax brings calls of 'unfair!' from the wealthy.

 

The flat tax burdens the poorer people.

 

ANY tax system is inherently flawed, IMO.

[stuckincincy]

No answers so far. Equality under law for all or not, with no special provisions...please don't dance. No wordiness is required. You are for legal discrimination or you are not..which is it? It's a simple question, is it not?

[GG]

Your understanding of economics is noted.

 

The rationale for supporting a flat tax is to remove the perverse gaming that's going on in the tax code with the countless deductions & loopholes.

 

We have been down this road many times. Never mind that any data you can pick shows that lowering tax rates (especially introducing a lower flat tax) leads to greater economic growth and raises the overall tax revenues.

 

The reason that the moronic progressive tax code with its myriad loopholes exists, is that the left can hide behind their favorite scapegoats to keep the status quo. They perpetuate the myth of helping out the common man by taxing the rich at higher levels, while maintaing a system where the rich have the resources to legally avoid the tax.

 

How about ending the charade, and implementing a tax code that eliminates the gaming? Could this be the reason we haven't seen Teresa's tax returns?

[stuckincincy]

Your understanding of economics is noted.

 

The rationale for supporting a flat tax is to remove the perverse gaming that's going on in the tax code with the countless deductions & loopholes. 

 

We have been down this road many times.  Never mind that any data you can pick shows that lowering tax rates (especially introducing a lower flat tax) leads to greater economic growth and raises the overall tax revenues.

 

The reason that the moronic progressive tax code with its myriad loopholes exists, is that the left can hide behind their favorite scapegoats to keep the status quo.  They perpetuate the myth of helping out the common man by taxing the rich at higher levels, while maintaing a system where the rich have the resources to legally avoid the tax.

 

How about ending the charade, and implementing a tax code that eliminates the gaming?  Could this be the reason we haven't seen Teresa's tax returns?

58140[/snapback]

That's a dance. We all know how the current laws are played. The question remains - it the constitution repudiated or not by the State's desire for money, an abasement of governeent by, for, and of the People?

 

If youand I break a speed limit, you and I pay the same fine. The law equally applies, correct?

 

Or are the tax laws a variation of Marx/Engels's "All according, etc."?

[slothrop]

No answers so far. Equality under law for all or not, with no special provisions...please don't dance.  No wordiness is required. You are for legal discrimination or you are not..which is it? It's a simple question, is it not?

58139[/snapback]

 

The answer lies in the current state of Constitutional law. Equal protection cases are divided into three tiers: Strict scrutiny (race, national origin), Intermediate scrutiny (gender), and rational scrutiny( everything else, including econoimc regulations). Under strict scrutiny, the government never wins - the test is too tough. While under rational scutiny the government always wins! In the case FCC v. Beach Communications, INc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) the Court stated "Equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and econimc policy, a statutory classifciation that neither proceeds along suspect lines (race, national orgin, gender) nor infringes fundemental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for the calssification."

 

I hope this helps.

[Alaska Darin]

The VAT tax brings high black market activity.

 

The progressive tax brings calls of 'unfair!' from the wealthy.

 

The flat tax burdens the poorer people.

 

ANY tax system is inherently flawed, IMO.

58137[/snapback]

The flat tax is the fairest, if a certain dollar figure is used as a minimum AND it's based on Cost of Living(therefore adjustable)...

 

At the end of the day, until we stop sending the government so much money it's not really going to matter what the system is.

[DC Tom]

In the case FCC v. Beach Communications, INc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) the Court stated "Equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and econimc policy, a statutory classifciation that neither proceeds along suspect lines (race, national orgin, gender) nor infringes fundemental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification."

58182[/snapback]

 

 

Uhhhh...I call bullstevestojan! "Reasonably conceivable set of facts"? Sounds like license for the government to do damn near whatever the hell they want.

 

But like you said...they always win that...

[GG]

If youand I break a speed limit, you and I pay the same fine. The law equally applies, correct?

 

Or are the tax laws a variation of Marx/Engels's "All according, etc."?

58157[/snapback]

 

Ah, but if you break the speed limit at 5MPH over, you'll pay less than I would when I break it at 25MPH over.

 

And to the Marx/Engels thing, a better analogy is to Marie Antoinette. There are a lot more people paying the 15% tax than 40% tax.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Ah, but if you break the speed limit at 5MPH over, you'll pay less than I would when I break it at 25MPH over.

 

And to the Marx/Engels thing, a better analogy is to Marie Antoinette.  There are a lot more people paying the 15% tax than 40% tax.

58335[/snapback]

 

Even worse if you got busted in a work zone.

 

Here it is up to $375.00.

[IUBillsFan]

Ah, but if you break the speed limit at 5MPH over, you'll pay less than I would when I break it at 25MPH over.

 

And to the Marx/Engels thing, a better analogy is to Marie Antoinette.  There are a lot more people paying the 15% tax than 40% tax.

58335[/snapback]

But you'll both pay the same if you both go 25 over the speedlimit you scofflaw's

[swede316]

I'm all for a flat tax.......Same % is fair. Say the tax rate is 10%. If you make $10,000 you pay $1000. If you make 100,000...You pay $10,000. I have no problem with that. Hell you could even put a tax free poverty limit...say under $10,000 would pay no taxes.

Just throwing some numbers out there...but how would this not be fair?

[UConn James]

The VAT tax brings high black market activity.

 

The progressive tax brings calls of 'unfair!' from the wealthy.

 

The flat tax burdens the poorer people.

 

ANY tax system is inherently flawed, IMO.

58137[/snapback]

 

Be it duly noted that tho necessary, taxes suck and govt spending is out of control which is an indictment for every party. But it has to be done based on what can conceivably be paid and what is fair in who gains most from the services rendered by govt.

 

I support a progressive tax. The rich and big corporations should expect to pay a slightly larger percentage of their income. Who has the higher interest in maintaining roads, educating our children, keeping the country (and our possessions) safe, etc.? I use the road to get places. I've had 12 years of education and 4 in college (of which I've paid a large %). I've called the police once when someone tried to 'jack the family car. I'm not advocating communism or anything here; normal citizens should expect to pay for these services. Corporations and the people who make over $200,000/ yr. benefit from the same personal protections. They also have a larger stake in the condition of the roads that transport their products. They have a larger stake in educating the people who one day will be using their computers, software, drill presses, what have you. They have a larger stake in police protection for their warehouses and McMansions that are targets for criminals, c'est la vie.... This goes on and on. Corps get tax breaks from local, state, fed govt to set up shop in a particular area so that area can have jobs so those people can pay taxes. (In Manchester, Conn., this type of thinking has led to the most commercially developed area in the U.S. and it's like a commercialism drug addiction where you need more tax money to pay for services that people come there for, spiraling into oblivion).

 

Do I realize what I'm saying? Yeah. If I were some day to be in that group of wage-earners or own a company, I would be fully prepared to put my money where my mouth is. It's called being responsible and paying your true share rather than shirking that responsibility. So are Kerry and his wife; their taxes will increase when he proposes to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy, which places a higher burden on those people who ultimately benefit much more from the services that taxes provide.