DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
Well, at least that's the first complaint about a flat tax anyway. Then, there will be those that gripe because the rich aren't paying their fair share, even though it's the same percentage share as everyone else. Then, they'll gripe because the rich have such a larger income that they are unfairly left with more money than they need to survive and the poor (who are contributing the same percentage) aren't left with enough.
The rich arent paying the same percentage now.. which IS the bitch.
You and I both know damn well that on wages, the rich are paying far more. It's the capital gains that drives their percentage lower. But, capital gains and income aren't the same type of income anyway. The next thing to think about is, wasn't the money that purchased the capital already taxed? In the case of investors, many of them are using after-tax dollars to do so. In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something.
But, like I said, if investments are given as pay, I think those should be taxed as regular income.
quote:
quote:
Just so you realize, your plan is almost the same as Paul Ryan's. Yes, you are taxing all income regardless of source and he does keep capital gains taxes lower, but his is still a progressive income tax, while yours is not.
A flat tax is something I have supported for a long, long time. Progressive means someone pays more... and it allows too many loop holes. The only one I would consider is no tax beneath poverty level. Above that, flat tax em all at the same rate... including corporations.
So, every bit of income, regardless of source, including capital gains and corporation income, would be taxed immediately, ending the need for stupid paperwork at the end of the year. Instead of the earner being responsible, the payer is now responsible.
I am going to assume that you are going to include money made overseas in the taxable earnings for Corporations. Are you going to offer any sort of reciprocity, that is, if the Corporation has paid taxes on that income to another country, is that going to be counted towards their US-owed ta bill? Many cities do that with neighboring cities, so that if, say, I lived in Toledo, and worked in Oregon, Ohio, the tax rates are the same, so the reciprocity means that I owe Toledo no city taxes on my income; it was collected by Oregon, where I worked. As an example, if I lived in Toledo, but worked in Maumee, Ohio, their city rates are different, with Toledo's being 0.5% higher. Thus, I would still owe Toledo some city taxes because Maumee didn't collect as much. As yet another example, if I lived in Perrysburg, Ohio (another neighboring 'burb of Toledo), and worked in Toledo, I would owe the city tax to Toledo. While Toledo reciprocates 100% with Perrysburg (income taxes paid by a Toledoan who works in P-burg count dollar for dollar), Perrysburg does not formulate their taxes the same way. They will credit their citizens 50% of the lower tax rate. To put numbers to this, P-burg's tax rate is 1.75% while Toledo's is 2.25%. If I live in P-burg, but work in Toledo, I pay Toledo's 2.25%, but as far as P-burg is concerned, I will still owe them half of their 1.75% (0.875%), making my total city tax liability 3.125%.
So, is there any reciprocity in your corporate tax structure for multi-national companies on their foreign-gained income?
quote:
quote:
I will not argue that some Corporations would discriminate across racial lines. Hell, I guarantee it happens now. Corporations are crafty in their hiring process. But, pre-CRA levels? Sincerely doubt it. There is too much at stake for a company. The information age has given us such a fast - almost immediate - way to spread the word that Corporations won't be able to discriminate without remorse.
If its not illegal to discriminate on race... who will stop them? Lets be realistic, many are closet racists, especially in certain parts of the country. Having people in the north know that a southern based company is discriminating is going to do what?
In 1980, I was 15... and dealt with a great deal of racism due to my father being native american... and I look white.. which was part of the problem. The belief that it would not revert back to the pre-1964 era is just that.. a belief.. and not one based upon any proof in the presence. Many places are still segregated...
quote:
An investigation by The Oregonian has found that leaders across the metro area and beyond are failing to fulfill a fundamental goal of the nation's 44-year-old Fair Housing Act: to give everyone, regardless of color, a fair shot at living in a decent neighborhood.
Taxpayer money meant to help break down segregation and poverty is instead reinforcing it. Agencies and governments are subsidizing housing in the poorest neighborhoods and commonly in areas with above-average minority concentrations. Poor people and people of color are being pushed from desirable areas such as Portland's inner east side. They are all but banished from high-end communities such as Lake Oswego.
Agencies and governments serving Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties accept about $170 million a year in federal money for affordable housing. In doing so, under the Fair Housing Act, they are expected to try to spread affordable housing across neighborhoods. They are expected to avoid concentrating poverty or people of color. In taking the money, they explicitly promise to identify and dismantle barriers to those efforts.
That's not happening.
Instead, residents who could most benefit from good schools, safe streets, abundant grocery stores, nearby parks and high-achieving role models are largely locked out of the neighborhoods that have them.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/06/subsidizing_segregation_locked.html
Its still happening.
I'm not denying it's still happening. I will disagree that it's still as prevalent as it was in the '60's. I will disagree that if the CRA were repealed, sunsetted, or however you want to state it, that we would devolve back to pre-CRA levels of institutional racism.
And, regarding your North/South question, why has Nike improved its foreign manufacturing plant conditions? If you find out that some shop down in GA is abusing their workers, of has proven racially discriminatory hiring practices, wouldn't you consider not purchasing their product? Look at the call to boycott the advertisers of Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck. Did Occupy Oakland start up as a planned addition to Occupy Wall Street, or was it, essentially, an offshoot of OWS? The Occupy Toledo group saw what was happening to OWS, Occupy Oakland, et. al. and prepared, or tailored their actions differently because of it.
In the Information Age, knowledge absolutely is power. Finding out a restaurant, or restaurant chain discriminates against a minority will result in my not being a customer of theirs, even if I'm not the minority being discriminated against.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread