How Taxes Work...

[LunarRay]

Well.... suppose we look at the taxing a bit differently

Say there are 10 people who are ironically representative of the economic class structure in the US..

The richest guy owns the 7-11 where the others work in various positions as mangagers and on down to the guy who pumps gas. Now there are a few others milling about but they can't work because they are disabled or aged or even unemployed cuz the owner layed them off in a cost cutting move... anyhow..

the gas pumpers they don't pay taxes at all but the managers do.. as does the owner. Well they all pay into SSI which is regressive but who cares about that, right?!

We could give a tax cut by eliminating dropping bombs everywhere or reducing the size of government by out sourcing various agencies to India or somewhere less expensive but no.. we will stimulate the economy and do so by cutting taxes...

So we give the gas pumper some earned income credit that he'll spend.. for sure.. and the manager well he'll get a bit of a cut.. but the owner ... he'll get a huge cut cuz with that money he'll invest it and create jobs.... but will he... maybe maybe not.. he may invest it into the largest industry in the US today... managing money...

did that tax cut work as expected..... nope.. not likely... give money to the poor and let demand run the show.. that works!

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tom

A tax is not a restriction on financial liberty at all. That's like saying paying for food is a restriction of financial liberty.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

You are confusing lack of ability with liberty. In our system, with taxes, you can get as rich as you are able. If you don't have enough money, it is your fault, not because you pay taxes.

Sorry, I think we just have different viewpoints. I view any restriction imposed by the government to be a restriction on my freedom. Restrictions on speech, permits for protest, taxes, etc. are all restrictions to me. Obviously there has to be some, the question is to what extent.

The society we have, including the government and taxes, has created the greatest economi liberty for the most people of any sytem in history. And not just in our country, but in every country that has adopted it.

There are places in this world without functioning governments, they aren't pretty.

I don't see why we can't create a functioning government that is efficient and does the msot possible to give people the most control over their own rights and property balanced with the overall society's needs.

That's exactly what we were working towards, before Bush.

Maybe Bush is still leading us that direction, but if he is, he is too clever for me to understand how it's going to work.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.... suppose we look at the taxing a bit differently

Say there are 10 people who are ironically representative of the economic class structure in the US..

The richest guy owns the 7-11 where the others work in various positions as mangagers and on down to the guy who pumps gas. Now there are a few others milling about but they can't work because they are disabled or aged or even unemployed cuz the owner layed them off in a cost cutting move... anyhow..

the gas pumpers they don't pay taxes at all but the managers do.. as does the owner. Well they all pay into SSI which is regressive but who cares about that, right?!

We could give a tax cut by eliminating dropping bombs everywhere or reducing the size of government by out sourcing various agencies to India or somewhere less expensive but no.. we will stimulate the economy and do so by cutting taxes...

So we give the gas pumper some earned income credit that he'll spend.. for sure.. and the manager well he'll get a bit of a cut.. but the owner ... he'll get a huge cut cuz with that money he'll invest it and create jobs.... but will he... maybe maybe not.. he may invest it into the largest industry in the US today... managing money...

did that tax cut work as expected..... nope.. not likely... give money to the poor and let demand run the show.. that works!

That sounds quite logical so, of course, it can't possibly be.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tom

That's exactly what we were working towards, before Bush.

Maybe Bush is still leading us that direction, but if he is, he is too clever for me to understand how it's going to work.

Nah, he can't possibly be leading us in that direction by spending hundreds of billions in Iraq.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Well, they we cut medicare/medicaid, welfare, SS....
People should make different choices with their lives. It isn't my fault the median is 45K a year. I know it isn't a reality, but I believe it is unfair that I pay more in taxes than my wife makes, yet we use the same services, etc.

I am at a point of diminishing returns. The more I work, the larger percentage they take. It makes it hardly worth it. It is no incentive to suceed when I know the craphead renter I used to have has 5 kids, doesn't work, smokes like a chimney, and my tax dollars pay for her to live. She is useless as a human being. She is no better than trash and should be treated as such.

You know what get over your self, but if you want to complain about fairness it is also not the poor people's fault you make 3 times (or more) what they make. If you want to pay less tax, how about you quit your job and start working at McDonalds.

And the idea that the more you work the larger the percentage 'they' take is so un-informed it is crazy. Have you even looked at the tax rate tables? If you are in the 28% tax bracket that means you pay 28% of the amount you earn over 71,950. But your total tax percentage is less than 28% (as posted above around 24%). Even if you make 1 dollar more than 150,150 you still pay 24% of your income, which still leaves you with over 114,114 which is still more than 2 times what the average household income is.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Plus the rich guy starts a fight with another group at the restaurant, and then sticks everyone's kids with paying to clean up the mess too.

Hey I am pretty sure social programs that benefit the poor more than the rich account for a large % of our federal budget. These programs are obviously not paid for in full or wont be in the future. Exactly who is sticking who with a bill again?

Programs that benefit the poor are overblown in the media. The bulk of government social spending is focused on the middle class (SS and Medicare). And the GOP just stuck as all with a huge bill for their prescription drug benefit that has no way to control costs.
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/cha/T051695A.gif
Of course the poor make an easy political target since they don't have the resources to fight back.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
You know what get over your self, but if you want to complain about fairness it is also not the poor people's fault you make 3 times (or more) what they make. If you want to pay less tax, how about you quit your job and start working at McDonalds.

And the idea that the more you work the larger the percentage 'they' take is so un-informed it is crazy. Have you even looked at the tax rate tables? If you are in the 28% tax bracket that means you pay 28% of the amount you earn over 71,950. But your total tax percentage is less than 28% (as posted above around 24%). Even if you make 1 dollar more than 150,150 you still pay 24% of your income, which still leaves you with over 114,114 which is still more than 2 times what the average household income is.

I am doing well. Why punish me for it? I opted to bust my ass, working several jobs and pay for my own college. My family is average middle class; nothing special. I chose not to spend money on alcoholo and cigarettes and decided a career at Mcdonalds is not for me.

Why compare me to average household? I am not the average household. I work 50+ hours a week, take call 24/7, and am still going to school for my Masters degree. I sacrifice time out with friends, time with family, and time alone so I can afford to retire and buy my wife a nice house.

Meanwhile some of my scumbag renters were out buying 65" TVs and $5k sofas to go with their minimum wage jobs. It is sickening. Doing away with SS should be first. I have an IRA and 401(k) as does my wife. We take care of our own things and do not depend on handouts.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
You know what get over your self, but if you want to complain about fairness it is also not the poor people's fault you make 3 times (or more) what they make. If you want to pay less tax, how about you quit your job and start working at McDonalds.

And the idea that the more you work the larger the percentage 'they' take is so un-informed it is crazy. Have you even looked at the tax rate tables? If you are in the 28% tax bracket that means you pay 28% of the amount you earn over 71,950. But your total tax percentage is less than 28% (as posted above around 24%). Even if you make 1 dollar more than 150,150 you still pay 24% of your income, which still leaves you with over 114,114 which is still more than 2 times what the average household income is.

I am doing well. Why punish me for it? I opted to bust my ass, working several jobs and pay for my own college. My family is average middle class; nothing special. I chose not to spend money on alcoholo and cigarettes and decided a career at Mcdonalds is not for me.

Why compare me to average household? I am not the average household. I work 50+ hours a week, take call 24/7, and am still going to school for my Masters degree. I sacrifice time out with friends, time with family, and time alone so I can afford to retire and buy my wife a nice house.

Meanwhile some of my scumbag renters were out buying 65" TVs and $5k sofas to go with their minimum wage jobs. It is sickening. Doing away with SS should be first. I have an IRA and 401(k) as does my wife. We take care of our own things and do not depend on handouts.

They're not necessarily punishing you for what you're earning. The government is looking to collect money and you can raise a hell of a lot more money in tax revenue by putting higher marginal tax rates on the richer people. Having higher taxes on richer people is also less burdensome for them than it would be for poorer people. The government isn't saying don't make a sh!tload of money, I'm sure they'd actually prefer that so they can get their hands on more revenue. What they're doing is looking where the money is and getting their revenues from that.

By your argument, the government punishes you for owning property. I mean, they make you pay property tax don't they? Why should owners of property have to pay tax when renters don't?

The truth is, they're just trying to get revenue.

It reminds me of something I heard about my state government. They raised taxes on cigarettes claiming that they wanted to discourage younger people from smoking. They raised the taxes above optimal revenue collection and revenues from the tax actually fell. Because of that, they later lowered the tax. I'm not completely sure how accurate that story is but it illustrates my point.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's interesting how one general group of people supports restricting financial liberty but not civil liberties, but the other group supports restricting civil liberties but not financial liberty. It's pretty sad to see what America has become when both of the largest groups represent evil.

I don't know what groups you are talking about, but in response let me say I don't see my Democratic party as restricting financial liberty, if that's what you're saying.

If you start from a position of wanting equal opportunity for everyone, which is fundamental to financial liberty, then society has certain obligations to establish a level playing field.

Also, the larger the universe where-in the financial liberty is going to happen, the more opportunity there will be, leads to decisions like electrification, building roads and dams, etc.

And we could make a society that's only goal was the immediate gratification of those that are now living, but that's pretty short sighted and stupid.

Any taxes is a restriction on financial liberty. A 30% income tax is a 30% reduction in your freedom. You're placing restrictions on someone supposedly for the benefit of the society as a whole, however it's no different than restricting civil liberties for the safety of the society as a whole. Both groups are essentially the same - they wish to take away from the individual.

Obviously a balance needs to be achieved, but I personally feel that taxes are too high for what little the government does.

While your attempt at trying to connect freedoms to paying tax is poor, I wish there was some way to pay less taxes. That said, I would not agree to pay less tax if things were worse than they are today.

Also, just so you know most people in this country do not pay 30% tax. According to the IRS as a single person you would have to make more than $150,000 per year to pay even 28% of your income.

If you would like to learn how federal taxes work:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Your last paragraph is flawed. You are only looking at federal income taxes. Where is the medicare, social security, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc...?

I figure that I pay around 50% of the money that I make to taxes every year when you factor everything in. I make a bit over $45,000/year. That really sucks. Frankly, I don't care about ANYONE else except for me. That is WAY too much.

 

[LunarRay]

You all are focused on the amount you've earned pre tax etc and then the net... Would it be easier to have the employer pay all the tax based on the same tax structure and pay you net (as he does anyhow) so if you made 50,000$ a year you'd really only make 25,000$ and that is all tax free... and no one ever thinks about taxes except the accountants...

It wouldn't matter who got a tax cut... you'd get your 25k and never pay a dime in tax..

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
By your argument, the government punishes you for owning property. I mean, they make you pay property tax don't they? Why should owners of property have to pay tax when renters don't?

Landlords don't pay taxes, tenants do. I personally think that the property taxes are the most unfair type of taxes. As you grow old your income generally decreases but your property values increase (as do the tax rates). There are many retirees who struggle to pay their property taxes. When they fail to pay, the government comes and takes your home and sells it (often below "Fair Market Value") taking their money off the top and leaving you w/ the pennies that remain. You never really own your property/home you only lease it from the government.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
By your argument, the government punishes you for owning property. I mean, they make you pay property tax don't they? Why should owners of property have to pay tax when renters don't?

Landlords don't pay taxes, tenants do. I personally think that the property taxes are the most unfair type of taxes. As you grow old your income generally decreases but your property values increase (as do the tax rates). There are many retirees who struggle to pay their property taxes. When they fail to pay, the government comes and takes your home and sells it (often below "Fair Market Value") taking their money off the top and leaving you w/ the pennies that remain. You never really own your property/home you only lease it from the government.

Technically they both pay the taxes. The landlord can't just add on the entire tax to everyone's rent otherwise he wouldn't get an optimal amount of people living in his houses/apartments. So the landlord has to charge a lower rate (adding the tax on top) and the tenant has to pay a higher rate overall. That's not really what I was getting at with my previous argument, however. Taxes generally aren't in place for punishment, they're just used to provide revenue.

You've actually brought up a controversial point about whether to lock in property taxes to the amount you bought it at or whether to adjust it with the market value of the house. I'm personally fine with adjusting it with the value of the house. You may say that it's not fair because older people would start paying more as the value of the house rises but I think that argument isn't very good. They can always sell the house and use that money to move into a lower priced house. If the value of your house is increasing so much that it's hard for you to pay the taxes, I would think it would be profitable enough for you to move into a cheaper neighborhood.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's interesting how one general group of people supports restricting financial liberty but not civil liberties, but the other group supports restricting civil liberties but not financial liberty. It's pretty sad to see what America has become when both of the largest groups represent evil.

I don't know what groups you are talking about, but in response let me say I don't see my Democratic party as restricting financial liberty, if that's what you're saying.

If you start from a position of wanting equal opportunity for everyone, which is fundamental to financial liberty, then society has certain obligations to establish a level playing field.

Also, the larger the universe where-in the financial liberty is going to happen, the more opportunity there will be, leads to decisions like electrification, building roads and dams, etc.

And we could make a society that's only goal was the immediate gratification of those that are now living, but that's pretty short sighted and stupid.

Any taxes is a restriction on financial liberty. A 30% income tax is a 30% reduction in your freedom. You're placing restrictions on someone supposedly for the benefit of the society as a whole, however it's no different than restricting civil liberties for the safety of the society as a whole. Both groups are essentially the same - they wish to take away from the individual.

Obviously a balance needs to be achieved, but I personally feel that taxes are too high for what little the government does.

While your attempt at trying to connect freedoms to paying tax is poor, I wish there was some way to pay less taxes. That said, I would not agree to pay less tax if things were worse than they are today.

Also, just so you know most people in this country do not pay 30% tax. According to the IRS as a single person you would have to make more than $150,000 per year to pay even 28% of your income.

If you would like to learn how federal taxes work:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Your last paragraph is flawed. You are only looking at federal income taxes. Where is the medicare, social security, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc...?

I figure that I pay around 50% of the money that I make to taxes every year when you factor everything in. I make a bit over $45,000/year. That really sucks. Frankly, I don't care about ANYONE else except for me. That is WAY too much.

First, the entire thread is about FEDERAL TAXES, so if you want to talk about all the other taxes fine, but it does not make my argument flawed in anyway.

Second, I would like to see some actual evidence of how you are losing 50% of your income in taxes (Medicare, ss, fed and state tax). Please find me a tax schedule of how they figure out how much you pay in those taxes.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
You know what get over your self, but if you want to complain about fairness it is also not the poor people's fault you make 3 times (or more) what they make. If you want to pay less tax, how about you quit your job and start working at McDonalds.

And the idea that the more you work the larger the percentage 'they' take is so un-informed it is crazy. Have you even looked at the tax rate tables? If you are in the 28% tax bracket that means you pay 28% of the amount you earn over 71,950. But your total tax percentage is less than 28% (as posted above around 24%). Even if you make 1 dollar more than 150,150 you still pay 24% of your income, which still leaves you with over 114,114 which is still more than 2 times what the average household income is.

I am doing well. Why punish me for it? I opted to bust my ass, working several jobs and pay for my own college. My family is average middle class; nothing special. I chose not to spend money on alcoholo and cigarettes and decided a career at Mcdonalds is not for me.

Why compare me to average household? I am not the average household. I work 50+ hours a week, take call 24/7, and am still going to school for my Masters degree. I sacrifice time out with friends, time with family, and time alone so I can afford to retire and buy my wife a nice house.

Meanwhile some of my scumbag renters were out buying 65" TVs and $5k sofas to go with their minimum wage jobs. It is sickening. Doing away with SS should be first. I have an IRA and 401(k) as does my wife. We take care of our own things and do not depend on handouts.

No one is punishing you for how much you make it is just that even if there was a flat tax % for everyone you would still pay more than most people in this country. Is it your fault you make more? NO. Will you end up picking up a larger part of the tab? Yes. Sorry it is just how it is. The only other way to do it would be to do as you said and run all the poor and lower middle class out of the country. Maybe you are fine with that, but I am pretty sure life as we know it in this country would cease. Who is going to pump your gas? Who is going to work on your car? Who is going to work the checkout lane in the grocery store?

Your rant about poor welfare people spending money on 65" TV's is completely un related to SS and anything close to it. As you went on to say SS is like a federal 401K retirement program and was never meant to last as long as it has. Should it be fixed? Yes. Please tell me how. How do you tell some grandmother that has no income other than social security that she has to die because neither the government or society are going to help her buy food. Yeah I know that is an emotional argument and there is no way you would ever see it that way but it is the hard truth. I am sure you could care less, which is fine by me but as long as you live in this country and make the money you do you will end up paying for it. If you don?t like it, how about you move to another country.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If it were truly trying to illustrate the "fairness" of the tax code, he would have listed the income/worth of the diners instead of just putting them into undefined categories.

What does it matter how much they make? They are all eating the same meal. When my friends and I go out to dinner, I don't pay more of the bill because I make more money. We pay equal (or split the check.)

shusshhhh.... grown ups are talking. go out and play

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If it were truly trying to illustrate the "fairness" of the tax code, he would have listed the income/worth of the diners instead of just putting them into undefined categories.

What does it matter how much they make? They are all eating the same meal. When my friends and I go out to dinner, I don't pay more of the bill because I make more money. We pay equal (or split the check.)

dang, I was just going to ask if the wife and I could go out to dinner with you two

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: pinion9
Someone, please explain to me what is wrong with flat tax? It is like a concert admission: you want in, pay this much. If everyone in America paid $5000/year to live here, we would all be happy. If you can't afford to live here with our nice roads and freedoms, then move somewhere else.

The problem with the flat tax is that rich people inherently hear more of what you call the 'concert'. Check my previous post, and take for example a CEO or upper-level manager of an international corporation. They not only benefit from all the extra public roads their company uses, but also from the United States' military and diplomatic protection, which is using much much more of the public funds than your typical American laborer.

Everyone has the same opportunity to become a CEO. How do I benefit more from the public roads and military than my wife? Hell, she drives on the roads more than I do. She should be paying more, not me. Don't people pay for the roads with their fuel tax? More driving = more fuel consumed = they are paying for the road.

If you believe that everyone has the same opportunity to become CEO, then I suggest you go work a few more years.

Statistically, men who are 6'2"+ make a lot more than men who are 5'8" - just because they are taller and command more respect in meetings and sales calls. This applies across fields and age groups. Statistically speaking, that 5'8" man will NEVER have the same opportunities as the 6'2" man - because he can't create the same overpowering impression during a sales call. Companies know this - for example, to get a job as a salesman for EMC (makes of large computing equipment), you pretty much are required to have a background as a college football player or hockey player, and be over 6'. Just for the physical presence. (BTW - I read that in an interview with their CEO a few years back, they don't even try to hide it).

Then there is the intelligence issue - some of us have it naturally, some of us don't. Can't avoid that, and again, it is hugely limiting of career choices and opportunities if you don't.

Lastly, family connections and money has a HUGE impact, even today. Bill Gates got superrich because his mom was on charity boards in Seattle with the wives of IBM executives - most people cannot get involved in these charities unless you come from a certain social group. Only very rich families can afford to send their children to Harvard, Yale, etc. - and affirmative action and academic scholarships only have a limited number of slots. If you want to get your child into the right PRE-SCHOOL in NYC they require interviews that basically ask for your economic details and social connections (of the parents) as a pre-requisite for getting your child in...and starting up the rich Mahattanite's ladder to success.

We simply DON'T all have the same opportunities, and to pretend otherwise is a lie. Doesn't mean that every year, a small percentage of people WILL migrate up the socioeconomic ladder, through dint of hard work, luck, or inheritance...but it is unfortunately a declining percentage.

Future Shock

 

[Jaskalas]

Ever since finite was removed from the dictionary taxes work just fine. Just keep raising them to pay for everything.

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
lmao so true.

QFT

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
By your argument, the government punishes you for owning property. I mean, they make you pay property tax don't they? Why should owners of property have to pay tax when renters don't?

Landlords don't pay taxes, tenants do. I personally think that the property taxes are the most unfair type of taxes. As you grow old your income generally decreases but your property values increase (as do the tax rates). There are many retirees who struggle to pay their property taxes. When they fail to pay, the government comes and takes your home and sells it (often below "Fair Market Value") taking their money off the top and leaving you w/ the pennies that remain. You never really own your property/home you only lease it from the government.

Technically they both pay the taxes. The landlord can't just add on the entire tax to everyone's rent otherwise he wouldn't get an optimal amount of people living in his houses/apartments. So the landlord has to charge a lower rate (adding the tax on top) and the tenant has to pay a higher rate overall. That's not really what I was getting at with my previous argument, however. Taxes generally aren't in place for punishment, they're just used to provide revenue.

You've actually brought up a controversial point about whether to lock in property taxes to the amount you bought it at or whether to adjust it with the market value of the house. I'm personally fine with adjusting it with the value of the house. You may say that it's not fair because older people would start paying more as the value of the house rises but I think that argument isn't very good. They can always sell the house and use that money to move into a lower priced house. If the value of your house is increasing so much that it's hard for you to pay the taxes, I would think it would be profitable enough for you to move into a cheaper neighborhood.

Why put them to all that trouble? Why not, if they can no longer work, just kill them. Come on, you have the mentality to understand that.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: Genx87
lmao so true.

QFT

uhh...care to explain why you think it's true? or are you just voting?

 

[fitzov]

Everyone has the same opportunity to become a CEO.

*sigh*

Are you going to back that up?

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Everyone has the same opportunity to become a CEO.

*sigh*

Are you going to back that up?

Well, here is some proof:

Business License: $100
Qualification for business license: nothing
Choosing your own title: priceless

How do I know? I just did it.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
By your argument, the government punishes you for owning property. I mean, they make you pay property tax don't they? Why should owners of property have to pay tax when renters don't?

Landlords don't pay taxes, tenants do. I personally think that the property taxes are the most unfair type of taxes. As you grow old your income generally decreases but your property values increase (as do the tax rates). There are many retirees who struggle to pay their property taxes. When they fail to pay, the government comes and takes your home and sells it (often below "Fair Market Value") taking their money off the top and leaving you w/ the pennies that remain. You never really own your property/home you only lease it from the government.

Technically they both pay the taxes. The landlord can't just add on the entire tax to everyone's rent otherwise he wouldn't get an optimal amount of people living in his houses/apartments. So the landlord has to charge a lower rate (adding the tax on top) and the tenant has to pay a higher rate overall. That's not really what I was getting at with my previous argument, however. Taxes generally aren't in place for punishment, they're just used to provide revenue.

You've actually brought up a controversial point about whether to lock in property taxes to the amount you bought it at or whether to adjust it with the market value of the house. I'm personally fine with adjusting it with the value of the house. You may say that it's not fair because older people would start paying more as the value of the house rises but I think that argument isn't very good. They can always sell the house and use that money to move into a lower priced house. If the value of your house is increasing so much that it's hard for you to pay the taxes, I would think it would be profitable enough for you to move into a cheaper neighborhood.

Why put them to all that trouble? Why not, if they can no longer work, just kill them. Come on, you have the mentality to understand that.

As much as I like that idea, Moonbeam....

On a serious note, we simply tell everyone under a certain age that we will no longer be providing them with Social Security benefits. Surely, someone in their 40's will be able to save enough money by the time they are 65. We then calculate how much we owe to the rest of the population that will receive social security, reappropriate money from the welfare program to the social security, and voila! Problem solved

 

[brandonbull]

Having a flat tax would create a socialist system government. Lower income earners would lose a larger portion of their disposable incomes to the government and more people would depend on the government to maintain the economy.