I've just read a post from our resident alien. He has the right idea, he wants all citizens to "have skin in the game". Very true, we all should have skin in the game, that would give us ALL incentive to take advantage of what all the U.S.A has to offer.

We all know there is no greater country for opportunity for everyone than the U.S.A. People have been risking their lives to come to her shores for centuries, and it continues unabated. So it stands to reason everyone should have skin in the game.

With everyone having skin in the game, one would vote for what would benefit them the most. Forget about people voting to help the poor and downtrodden, humans aren't wired that way. When it comes down to brass tacks, you and your family come first. Not being selfish here, just being realistic.

So the subject is taxes, we have a few posters here that decry tax cuts meant to incentivize economic growth leading to more prosperity for all. Why do they not favor tax cuts? Most likely they pay little if any taxes, and have little desire to better our economy. One loves to call for a 90 some percent of your income tax rate. Yes you read that correctly. If you earn 100 thousand per year he wants the government to relieve you of 90 thousand of it. Leaving you with 10,000 to feed, clothe and house your family.

In that vein to facilitate his desire to "help", we should enact a flat tax, on EVERYONE over 18. Say 90 percent of any kind of income source they have. Be it welfare checks, food stamps, housing allowance etc. We all need skin in the game right? Not to mention the government knows best how to spend your money, right? So let them spend it for you, trust them, they'll do right by you.

If ALL of us had to pay 90 percent of any income source, just how many people do you think would call for a 90 percent tax rate? How about being realistic here and tell the truth, NONE! No one would demand a 90 percent rate.

OF course I'm just being facetious here, 90 percent would be ridiculous, however a more realistic flat rate of 15 to 20 percent for ALL people 18 and over would suffice. Our real tax revenue would grow, because instead of 50 percent of us paying taxes we'd have 100 percent paying taxes.

Everyone would have skin in the game and would work towards the betterment of the country. You know...team work, instead of division. Give the folks incentive to be all they can be. We'd all be much better off.

Yes that is exactly what mankind needs... TEAMWORK!

 

Have you ever taken the time to reflect upon your "observation." If you'll go back and read through Mr Smith's posts, there is one constant theme, that is to make life better for all. Before you hastily criticize my" for all" comment, stop take a breath and think about it. Mr Smith has always been about common sense. The only reason a lot of people criticize Mr Smith is due to their thoughtless hatred of President Trump. Like President Trump when Mr Smith is attacked Mr Smith sets the record straight, you apparently do not like that, well all I can say is Mr Smith is only human...

 

Right about the time the people elected an affirmative president I decided I had paid my fair share of taxes.
I did some research and found a way to make a decent living and not pay any income tax. It took a little while to put into place.
Now I do not pay any more income taxes.
Maybe more people should stop paying taxes.

 

A flat tax would cut taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor.

Those who advocate this sometimes claim that the poor do not pay any taxes at all. However, when federal, state, and local taxes are combined, those in the lowest 20% of income pay 16.0% of their household income in taxes. Those in the next lowest 20% pay 20.5% of their household income in taxes. Those in the top 1% of family incomes pay 30.8% of their income in taxes.

So, the entire tax system is mildly progressive.

However, the mean household income of those in the lowest 40% of households is $20,000. The mean household income of those in the top 1% is $1,679.000.

Admittedly, these figures come from the Citizens for Tax Justice.

*not_secure_link*www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

This is a think tank that is considered to be left of center, but "generally trustworthy for information."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/citizens-for-tax-justice/

I am choosing Citizens for Tax Justice as my source because I cannot find comparable information elsewhere. If anyone has comparable information, please post it.

When deciding whether America's rich are over taxed, and America's bottom 40% are under taxed - let us remember that the bottom 40% includes the working poor, the lower middle class, and most blue collar workers - we should also consider the gini index. This is a measure of family income comparing countries. The possible value range from 0 to 100. At 0 everyone in a country would be paid the same.

The gini index in the United States is 45. That is higher than for any affluent democracy. The United Kingdom is said to be a class divided country. The gini index in the UK is 32.4. In the European Union it is 31.0. These figures come from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html#us

According to an article posted by the Pew Research Center December 5, 2013, "Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley, has been [studying the distribution of income in the United States] for years. And according to his research, U.S. income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s, and now has reached levels not seen since 1928."
*not_secure_link*www.pewresearch.or...n-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

In 1929 the stock market crash happened, beginning the world wide Great Depression. A coincidence? I think not.

According to an article posted September 27, 2017 in the Pew Research Center, "About a quarter of U.S. adults (24%) say tax rates on corporations and large businesses should be lowered, while roughly twice as many (52%) say they should be raised...

"as with tax rates on corporations, just 24% say taxes on incomes over $250,000 should be reduced; 43% say they should be raised."
*not_secure_link*www.pewresearch.or...rates-on-corporations-high-household-incomes/

The Master of Facts prefers to avoid the use of the word and the concept of "should." He likes to deal with "the facts Mam, just the facts." while inviting XNXX posters to make their own normative conclusions.

The Master also welcomes polite debate, asking only that those who dispute his posts compose their own arguments, using their own words, and the internet only to verify factual assertions. Anyone can find an article on the internet that tells them what they want to believe.

 

Dog, if we had a flat tax the rich person would still be paying more $$ than a poor person.
It isn't the fault of anyone else if a person is poor. There are ways to get out of the poverty business.
It is called work.

 

Then how can the government pay for all the stuff President Trump wants to spend money on, you know the wall, infrastructure, more military spending, etc?

 

Please read my comment again. A flat tax would raise taxes on the working poor, the lower middle class, and most blue collar workers. These people work.

 

Don't worry Dog. Trump has some ideas. He has already lowered the number of government employees.
When he gets rid of many of the fluff and feel good things that cost us so much money there will be more money for the important things.

- msman

-------

Government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) increased under President Reagan.
View attachment
https://www.usgovernmentspending.co..._F0t_US_Government_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP

I am confident it will increase under President Trump.

-------

The New York Times, July 22, 2017

The amazing thing about Mr. Trump’s vision of an ever-shifting, ever-shrinking wall (he’s halved its needed length to 700 to 900 miles, plus “natural barriers”) is that House Republican appropriators somehow rate it credible enough that they approved funding last week for the administration’s request of $1.6 billion to start construction. Outside experts have estimated the ultimate cost at $25 billion or more.

-------

Republicans have programs that they want to spend more money on. The problem is that they don't want to pay for those programs.

Republicans face an additional problem when trying to combine tax cuts and balanced budgets. According to a chart posted by the Pew Research Center March 13, 2013, "Public rejects cuts in government spending in most areas."

*not_secure_link*www.people-press.o...support-for-cutting-most-programs/2-22-13-99/

 

To those who advocate a flat tax I ask this question: considering that economic inequality in the United States is as high as it has been since the stock market crash of 1929, and that a flat tax would exacerbate inequality, is a flat tax wise?

I would appreciate a "Yes" or "No" answer, and I welcome an explanation of your "Yes" or "No" answer.

 

Bollocks, the US is probably the worst country with opportunities for everyone in the developed world.

 

Dog, you still fail to see the best thing about a flat tax even though you have been told several times.
A flat tax would stop all of those demanding a higher tax rate on other people.
People call for everyone except themselves to pay a higher tax. If they were subject to the same % increase all of a sudden raising taxes would not be as popular with some groups.
The people would be more willing to make the politicians slow their free spending.

 

The flat tax is the most equal of all. If you would have worked as hard as Dr Ben Carson you would be making over 500 K a year. You'd be in one of the top brackets, why should I expect you to pay at a greater rate than say Stumbler, making 50 K working on a oil rig. Stumbler had the very same opportunity as you had. He could be bringing in 500K a year. No you both started out naked in this world, so we will continue to treat you equally, for when you both pass from this world you'll both be naked, you aren't taking anything with you. You'll pay 100,000 dollars in federal tax (20%) and Stumbler will pay 10,000 dollars in federal tax. (20%) We won't penalize you for working harder than Stumbler.

If you feel you aren't paying your equal share no one is stopping you from donating to the United States Treasury. Or you could give any extra tax you think you should pay to the widows and orphans fund. I'm sure they would welcome your contribution. However we will continue giving everybody an equal opportunity from the day one is born until the day you die. America is the land of equal opportunity.

 

October 24, 2017

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fewer than a third of Americans support Donald Trump’s tax-cut plan, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday, as the U.S. president went to Capitol Hill looking for Republican backing for his proposal to slash tax rates for individuals and companies.

As the 2018 midterm congressional election campaigns grow nearer, the poll found that more than two-thirds of registered voters said reducing the U.S. federal budget deficit is more important than cutting taxes for the wealthy or for corporations.

Trump’s plan would balloon the deficit and add to the $20 trillion national debt, according to critics and independent analysts, but Republicans say the tax cuts proposed in the plan would be offset by economic growth that would generate new tax revenue.

[Distant Lover: Haven't we heard that before?]

Among Republicans surveyed, 63 percent said deficit reduction should take priority over tax cuts for corporations, while 75 percent said deficit reduction should take priority over tax cuts for the wealthy...

Trump, who has yet to score a major legislative win since taking office in January, wants his plan to become law before year’s end, a time frame that some policy analysts doubt is realistic.

More than half of the adults surveyed in the poll agreed that “cutting taxes for the poor is more important than reducing the federal deficit,” with 68 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of Republicans in accord with that statement, the poll showed.

 

The answer is simple. You live, you pay taxes, you die. The rest is garbage. Trump is not addressing sales tax, federal excise tax, import duties, export duties, property tax or any other state or local tax that might be relevant to any average person.
He's just offering a couple of buck back on income tax to the average Joe so he can get millions off of his own tax bill and that of hid donors.
Worthless, pointless crap that will raise our deficit even more.

Btw-
Has anyone noticed whether or not the House Critters intend to fight raising the debt ceiling this year?

 

When Trump was campaigning he promised not to cut Medicare. Now he proposes to do just that. People over 65 are currently a Republican constituency. That is likely to change if his tax "reform" policies are enacted into law.

Trump ran as a new kind of Republican, the kind who cared about blue collar workers, as long as they were white. He is governing as an old kind of Republican, the kind whose only real desire is to make the rich richer.

 

show me how he is cutting medicare in a tax bill....

 

Forbes, September 29, 2017

The Trump/GOP tax plan will not spur job creation, economic growth nor raise stagnant wages for the lower and middle class. It's built on a lie.

Once again, the GOP is trying to bamboozle Americans into believing that giving tax cuts to businesses and the ultra-wealthy will help everyone else. It's never been true and is just a giveaway designed to keep money flowing into GOP campaign coffers and starve government...

Some $3 trillion is sucked out of government revenues if the Trump/GOP plan passes. That means the government goes even deeper into debt or simply starts cutting the guts out of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which it certainly has stated plans to do. The defense budget, meanwhile, will continue to grow.

 

Chicago Tribune, October 20, 2017

Under congressional rules, the nonbinding budget resolution is supposed to lay out a long-term fiscal framework for the government. This year's measure calls for $473 billion in cuts from Medicare over 10 years and more than $1 trillion from Medicaid. All told, Senate Republicans would cut spending by more than $5 trillion over a decade, though they don't attempt to spell out where the cuts would come from.

 

Dog, it is about time someone tried to starve government.
Do you think Trump will add more $$ to our debt than Obama did?

 

give me the link I want to see what you cherry picked----

our total income is around 3.6 trillion and you are saying it will go down to 600 billion-----

I was born at night but not last night....