What you dudes don't understand is that "increase the revenue" means tax people more. In the scenarios you are describing you are passing massive tax increases on the working poor and the middle class. That is not going to increase revenue. That is going to cause a massive contraction in the economy which will cause revenues to fall. And Rwilliams if you are making less than 100K and paying more than 12K in taxes you are doing something very wrong.
60k a year is poor? No one is even talking about taxing the poor. We are talking about a flat tax from around 8-15% for 60K 15% is extreme, and 8% being more realistic of a flat tax. 8% would in no-way shape or form hurt anyone.......... Unless you are horrible with money...Like the government. When I said 15-20% it was more of me just throwing a number out there. There is a number, which could be low, that we could use as a flat tax for income ranges that would increase revenue through the use of taking deductions away…
Do you know what the current average effective tax rate for someone making a gross of 60K is? It is 3%. Even at your 8% number you are almost tripiling the amount the middle class pays in federal income taxes. To illustrate my point, currently someone with a gross salary of 60K is paying about $1,800 in federal income taxes. At 8% they would be paying $4,800. Now if you had three thousand fewer dolars a year what would you no longer be able to do? Those things you a re no longer able to do will cost people jobs. Why should we allow the government to suck more money out of the economy? They are the ones who spend too much. Why should we give them more of our money?
It's hard for any of us to toss out a number. But somewhere out there is the right figure that pays for what we spend without excessive deficit or surplus. The challenge is to find the proper balance point when the oilitical parties are only concerned with establishing the extreme positions instead of effective compromises.
how in the hell is washington ever supposed to do that. they would have a 10 fight over what to order for lunch. I noticed you said that's the challenge, but it seems more like an unattainable goal to me, not because of the goal itself, but because of the people arguing about it.
You are fixating on a number again. lol Jesus Christ.... Use your model, 3% no deductions = more revenue..... :thumb:
No that would mean much less revenue. The point is a flat rate that would be about revenue neutral would be about 16%. That would mean a huge tax increase for the middle class and working poor and a huge cut for the rich and ultra rich. It is great that you are for something simple, but deductions are not the problem. Government spending is.
which is exactly why it is pointless to be so vague, which is what i have been telling you for years.
