Flat Tax
I heard Steve Forbes on the radio yesterday morning and I liked what I heard. He's pimping his new book but all of the points he made sounded good to me (just like when I heard that Atkins guy describe his diet). I don't know anything about the guy personally or politically, but he didn't sound like a kook.
The general notion would be to abolish the IRS as it is and simplify the tax code so that you'd only need to fill out a simple questionaire to do your taxes each year. His proposal is to tax everyone exactly 17% if they make $46,000 or more in a year. I'm struggling to find out what the down side is to this plan. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
Forbes made a claim that Reagan vetoed a bill that contained 150 special interest earmarks because of the pork. He said that G. Bushy passed a bill with more than 6000 of these types of pet projects and that's where much of our newly expanded deficit originates. Is that accurate? If so, are the bills themselves merely subterfuge?
He also asserted that we could afford the current war and that is NOT necessarily a major contributor to the deficit. Is that possible?
I'm always afraid to get too far into these conversations because I've been blissfully ignorant for a long time. It's comfortable here. However, if there's no compelling reason to hit someone making minimum wage with a tax bill every year, why not stop that?
Posts
42 comments:
I'm all for the abolishment of the IRS. It's an unwieldy bureaucracy, and often does more harm than good (in the interest of full-disclosure I was just forced to pay 27K due to a filing error that wasn't my fault).
a) 17% flat tax:
Right now I pay 28% federal (it goes as high as 35%). By the time you figure in MD state tax and Montgomery County income tax, almost half of my income goes to taxes.
Opponents of the flat tax argue that those who earn more should be forced to pay a greater percentage of taxes. I don't agree.
b)Earmarks:
This is my bread & butter. Due to cuts in infrastructure/education/labor budgets over the last two decades, most of these available funds are available through 'earmarking'. Earmarks are what build schools, repair hospitals, and improve highways. For every Sen. Stevens' "bridge to nowhere" there are a hundred valid programs funded by earmarks.
c)War:
Wars DO cost money, and (in hindsight)I can't see any valid reason that the US should be dumping all of our money into babysitting the middle-east. I stand by the war with Afghanistan, but we should have just bombed the hell out of that fucker and then gone home. That entire region is a hornet's nest, and won't be ready for a functioning democracy within any of our lifetimes. We should have let the Soviet Union have it back in 1979, instead we HANDED it to the fucking Taliban.
Nation-building is a huge fucking waste of money and goodwill. Don't even get me started on Iraq.
Those are just my opinions, I could be wrong (but I'm not).
Oh, and Bush won't veto shit. That cocksucker would sign into law the 'President Bush's Momma So Ugly Act of 2006' if it had a significant corporate tax break in it. He hasn't vetoed a single piece of legislation in his presidency, which is fucking unheard of.
The bigger issue is that he refuses to work with Congressional leadership to help reign in spending across the Congress as a whole. He sees it as 'below' him, despite the fact that every president since Roosevelt (Teddy, not FDR) has made a point to do this.
So asking for permission to raise the ceiling on the deficit is fine, but curbing excess spending is not worth his time?
Like you I have yet to hear a thoroughly convincing argument against the flat tax.
Two more years of these jokers. Gonna feel like 20.
I'm looking for any argument against it - sensible or not.
Kind of off topic - I used to work in an office where everyone was a conservative Republican but me. (I'm not necessarily a Democrat - more of a pick-and-choose voter.) Anyhow, all of them were church-going folk and mocked me for being a socialist (and "hipster doofus" - beside the point). Isn't that the core of Christianity? Aren't church-going folks supposed to help their neighbors? Aren't those the same church-going values the current president ran on in two elections?
This brings out the ultimate hypocrisy in the church and government - some people are worthy of help and some people are not. Exclusivity should be abolished.
/Easter rant.
Quick comment about Chris B's last comment: Those conservative Christians are maybe not the best examples of good Christians. But, they might be. It's a struggle to a goal for living, not the persistant state of perfection; that's the J Man's role. There's much Christian charity that goes un-noticed that comes from both liberal and conservative individuals.
As for the flat tax, I've always loved the idea. I know that one of the arguments against it is that there will inevitably be loopholes that result in unfair burden. Personally, I think that a simple flat tax would have to make it easier to close loopholes. Even if there were still loopholes, so what? We have them now with this crappy unfair system that we have, and any improvement at this point is welcome to me.
My biggest problem with the graduated tax that we have now is that it belies (in my opinion) what the purpose of taxation should be. I think that the purpose should be to fill government coffers with enough money to fund needed programs (that's a whole other debate), not to make sure that the wealthier you get, the less of your money you get to keep.
It makes no sense to me that the govt. should take money from the paychecks of someone making less than forty-somthing dollars a year each weak, only then to have them file a return at the end of thatyear results in a refund of a portion of it. It makes even less sense the lower the income is. That's a forced loan to your govt., and that sucks! Nobody making less than a certain benchmark should pay anything.
Our govt. does need to control spending, that's true. We're in this position as citizens where we're living and working as much to run programs that are supposed to help us because we can't all afford to provide all that we need because we can't afford to provide for all that we need because roughly half of what we makes goes to taxes. Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe that there is no need for taxes. I'm not going to meet with you guys every month or so to organize funding and implementation of roads, military and social programs. So, we have the govt.
EdP has told me why he thinks a flat tax is a bad idea, but I can't remember it exactly. So, I'm hoping that he jumps in here very soon.
Old Dirty Dog said: "EdP has told me why he thinks a flat tax is a bad idea, but I can't remember it exactly. So, I'm hoping that he jumps in here very soon."
edP says after thinking about it: My opinion on the flat tax ain't worth shit.
Here's the thing I would caution ChrisB or anyone about...a large part of politics is about winning the argument. I've won a helluva lot of arguments in my time, and there is no proof that I've been right on all or half of them.
The art of rhetoric (this does not have to be a pejorative) suggests that in order to persuade someone to do an action that you want them to do, you want to first make that action/ting seem (or sound) possible. Again, this isn't an argument against the flat tax per se but just a call to be wary opf arguments you like.
A lot of people thought the 16th Amendment would level the economic playing field between rich and poor in America, create a greater, more responsive democracy at the national level...they thought it sounded like it made good sense. It was fair, it sounded like a way to redistribute wealth (when these words sounded better to American ears)...
If they put the income tax amendment to a vote today - would we the great grandchildren of the we the people who sort of said it sounded like a good idea happily rally around this tax reform? Are we all ready to stand up and re-ratify it?
C'mon, show of hands now...
Who's with me?
Where'd everyone go?
Great I cleared out the blog.
Ed, I hear you. I was persuaded and I'm looking for the counterpoint - still haven't heard one.
To your cautionary point, did the tax code even the playing field when it was originally started? If it did, you can't blame the progenitors of the 16th amendment - they had the right idea (in my opinion). But, as those were revolutionary (at least novel) ideas at their time, we're in a new time and perhaps newer ideas are in order - as long as they also espouse the right idea.
I can't foresee the possible problem with the flat tax and I wouldn't advocate it if someone showed me the peril. That said, just as I don't blame the folks that put forth the 16th for the current abomination, I'm sure our grandkids will forgive us.
er - I heard dc liar in his explanation but agree with him to disagree that rich paying more of a percentage is bunk. The focus of this thing should be more on the folks at the other end of the financial spectrum in my estimation.
Chris B, re:
"This brings out the ultimate hypocrisy in the church and government - some people are worthy of help and some people are not. Exclusivity should be abolished."
Is it possible that the inconsistency you rightly point out is evidence of the ultimate hypocrisy in hypocrisy itself...done in the name of the church? I don't think you are suggesting that the church is ultimately an instrument of hypocrisy are you? I can certainly agree that bad individuals have used a variety of different churches as tools for political power, winning rotten arguments and doing some godawful things in the history of the world. Your statement seems to suggest that what you called "church" seems to ultimately wind up being hypocritical. Maybe it's late and I am reading this incorrectly.
And re: the core of Christianity: "Isn't that the core of Christianity? Aren't church-going folks supposed to help their neighbors?"
This is a very modern reading of Scripture, belp thy neighbor, do unto others, promote toleration all for the sake of civil peace. (all good things by the way) The moderns were in the business of taking the teeth out of Christianity , making it safe for the West. There may have been some good reasons for doing this - people killing each other in England and Europe over where you put the alter.
...but I am not sure you can call help thy neighbor the "core" of Christianity. Maybe this gives you more reasons to disregard the position I am putting forth here...because you think, if that isn't the core then it damned well should be.
Fine.
But a large part of the modern project re: Christianity was to strip it of all miracles, dogmas...get rid of the boggity boogity factor. To the extent that there are many people who would flat out agree with your statement suggests to me that the moderns have succeeded.
I'm not saying this gets the people in your post off the hook - or conservative Christians (who are politically active) - because the ones I've known and read...and who have consulted with friends of mine - are snakes and deserve your scorn whether you know them or not...
...but the reduction of Christianity to simple and helpful logic may make this world seem like a nicer place, or help Christians become more reasonable, but I wonder if it captures the breadth and essence of Christianity.
Finally, Old Dog re:
"Those conservative Christians are maybe not the best examples of good Christians. But, they might be."
If they argued that a vote for g bushy and the blue tie crowd was a vote for Christian values - show me the day on the calander the R's overturned Roe for them...show me how they actually tried to save the namesake of Terri's Pac. Did they do this, or did they grandstand in the name of religion (remembering what Tom De Later did with his dad) making conservatives and Christians look like the hupocrites CHris B says they are?
Those who portray themselves as politically active Christian conservatives and tie themselves to the current administration are a sorry bunch of examples for Chris B to use to paint the lot of us as institutionalized hypocrites. Christian charity (what little I have in my shriveled little heart) prevents me from telling these such Christian conservatives where they can go.
ChrisB, re: this:
"I'm looking for the counterpoint - still haven't heard one."
I am not interested in giving one. The flat tax may not be the tool of liars and powermongers. I am not sure.
I am sure that my providing a counterpoint wouldn't demonstrate whether or not the flat tax was a good or bad thing...it would only demonstrate my ability to make an argument.
More later. You rock.
oh, I don't mean to say that this flat tax discussion is not interesting. I've been thinking about it ever since you brought it up on Friday. But since I've only been thinking of it in terms of a good or evil (on it's own merits - rather than its merits as an argument) SINCE FRIDAY...I am a dummy, no economist and no help to you on this score. I'll keep tuning in to see where it goes, and try to educate myself a bit on this subject.
Re this:
"If it did, you can't blame the progenitors of the 16th amendment - they had the right idea (in my opinion)."
I'm not sure you can say this. You said on Friday that a variety of people have different perspectives and hence different solutions they bring to their political solutions. Why can't I ask this question:
"Is it possible that the turn of the century progressives are not as worthy of the name as you or I would like to believe? Is it possible that they thought they could make a low appeal to the people TAXES WILL NOW LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN YOU AND THE RICH...al the while using those appeals to solidify their base and have no knowledge nor give a damn that the tax code would become the unwieldy monster it has become?"
Beyond this, since the 16th Amendment has led to the TaxCode Godzilla you claim it is - isn't this just an idea that the proof was in the pudding. How is saying their ideas were revolutionary but wrong any different than saying - THEIR IDEAS WERE WRONG???
Finally, re this:
"But, as those were revolutionary (at least novel) ideas at their time, we're in a new time and perhaps newer ideas are in order - as long as they also espouse the right idea."
I'm not sure that our new time is fundamently differen from 1913 or any other time for that matter. For someone who has argued in the past that everything, ideas opinions whatever are constantly in flux - not fixed by religion, philosophy or any of that nonsense you seem pretty determined to make the claim: ONE THING IS TRUE HISTORY CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Oh re me saying: "I'm not sure you can say this."
You can say whatever the hell you want to say its your blog. I feel like booing myself for the last comments.
Feel free to tell me to go to hell, call me a hypocrite and tell me to get offa your e-lawn.
A perfect place to do this would be drinking with the DC Liar next Fri at the Annex
"This is a very modern reading of Scripture, belp thy neighbor, do unto others, promote toleration all for the sake of civil peace."
What about the ten commandments? I had an enlightening discussion with the pastor of the church I've been attending (fuckery-free as far as I can tell) where he made the ten commandments out to be more of a tool of the moderns (at the time) to maintain order and keep the species moving forward - less of a divine directive from the Omnipotent. (Inspired by, for sure.) I'd say that the ten commandments espouse "help thy neighbor" and "do unto others" and Jesus took it to a different level.
Also, I'm not saying that's all that Christianity is, but I am saying that, like economics and philosophy, there are some core issues that are simple and they are made complex over time and people lose sight of the core issues (in my estimation). With all the discussions about the new Judas Gospel and the DaVinci code, people are upset and divided instead of comforted by their own religion.
"How is saying their ideas were revolutionary but wrong any different than saying - THEIR IDEAS WERE WRONG???"
By saying that at the time, their ideas had never been tried. If they were able to make a claim that they could create a truer democracy by re-distibuting wealth via a tax code, and it was voted into effect, then it was progressive at the time and the right idea. 90 years and the dawn of automation, unions, the internet, and tons of litigation have changed the context. I'm not as concerned about re-distributing wealth anymore - I'm more concerned about being able to afford a house, car, etc.
When the state of Illinois put up the first toll booth, there were a lot more corn fields than subdivisions surrounding the city. I would guess that everyone was excited about the idea of super highways and expansion. This is now referred to as "sprawl" and it's unwanted change. Toll booths now seem like an abomination.
Maybe I'm totally off base here, but I believe that an idea can be seen as progressive and popular at one time in history but in hindsight can be seen as wrong.
Chris B said this:
"By saying that at the time, their ideas had never been tried. If they were able to make a claim that they could create a truer democracy by re-distibuting wealth via a tax code, and it was voted into effect, then it was progressive at the time and the right idea."
I believe this is a plausible scenario and there were probably leading progressives who honestly believed and wanted this, so I agree with you up to a point. I just wanted to suggest the possibility that evil fucks could have instigated and successfully led the charge for the 16th Amendment - which to some sounded like fair play and good sense...only then to be revealed for what it really is: an unholy piece of shit.
Re: your discussion of "the core issues of Chirstianity that have been made complex over time" - my kid just woke up so I'll have to get back to you on this.
You really pushed my buttons with some of the stuff here...I dove knee deep into a conversation I know next to nothing about (the flat tax) - although the OD sorta pulled me in here...now it's all this.
Rock on ChrisB
OK, I'm gonna tell you why the flat tax is a bad idea (the fact that a rich white guy was promoting it should've been your first clue). The rich will stay rich no matter what scheme you put in place. Look at it like this: if you tax a multi-millionaire at 35% or 17%, his standard of living doesn't change does it? But if you reduce the tax burden of someone making $25k from 25% to 15%, you've put nearly $3k into his pocket, and that can make a huge difference in his life. As proof of this, just look at the 90's. During this time, Clinton raised taxes on the top brackets, and guess what, their net worth still increased faster than the rest of us. Why? Because they have other means to earn money (investments, easier access to credit), their earning power will always outstrip Joe SixPack. It's foolish to believe a flat tax is all about 'fairness'. All you would be doing is writing a big fat check to the rich while at the same time completely fucking up the ability of the government to conduct it's business, like starting wars. Now, if you want to talk streamlining the tax code, I'm all for it, but the flat tax scheme would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The only revenue stream I've heard of which makes sense is the national sales tax. It has all the elements one would need to ensure 'fairness'. In this scenario, the rich still pay more because they spend more. It works for everyone except our fearless leaders in Washington. Because revenues from a national sales tax cannot be guaranteed due to economic cycles and world events, the government would have to operate on a pay as you go plan. So, yeah, it's unworkable because the guys inside the beltway cannot control their spending (hello Pentagon). Still, we wouldn't be having this conversation if W hadn't blown the surplus on the rich folks and poor Iraqis. BTW, can anyone remember what they did with their $300??
First off, we need to explore the genesis of the 16th amendment.
This legislation started with the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act which set the income tax at 2%. It was ratified in 1913 during one of the most economically dense presidencies (Wilson - The President that boldly led us into the Depression). Now it has grown into an unwieldy behemoth, that thrives on loopholes and red-tape.
Right now I make a good salary, but I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck. I live in one of the most expensive regions in the country and pay for it. Cost-of-living doesn't factor into taxes, and I pay near 50%. If I were back in DeKalb 50% of my income would be (way) more than enough to live on, but out here I'm facing debt.
I don't see why it's the responsibility of those earning higher salaries to carry the burden of financing a spectrum of programs that they will never use or benefit from.
But that's a moot point, because the ultra-wealthy can afford to pay legal teams to exploit loopholes and benefits under the current convoluted system, so that they're making profit on the system. The corporations are the worst at this.
If we scrap the current system, we can fix this. We need a radical restructuring of the tax code to close these loopholes, and to make the process more simple and more equitable.
Re: Christian Compassion:
If you need to believe that the sword of Damocles is hanging over your head in order to do good deeds, you're a horrible person. Why don't these sheep take action because it's THE FUCKING RIGHT THING TO DO, not because it would curry favor with some unseen bearded deity.
I can't get down with a national sales tax. I can only imagine it would coincide with the state taxes already in place and make products more expensive. I partially understand the logic on the idea that "rich spend more" but the tax would represent a much higher impact to the person spending less, right? To your point, the rich aren't going to suffer from a little additional sales tax - but someone saving up to afford a jug of milk would.
I guess I'm still not convinced against the flat tax either. If I forget about trying to save the world and just look at my own case, I would be saving the $3000/year (or whatever) and it would be less worrisome to file my own taxes. If that caused the government to not be able to function, I'd be surprised. I've been paying a similar tax rate for years but the national deficit has been all but eliminated and stretched to its highest level yet since I've been paying them. That leads me to believe that income taxes are only a small component of the bigger picture.
I have to get back to work before someone notices and I don't have any income to report again...
P.S. - my parents couldn't be any more honest and they're also looking at paying a five-figure penalty for ONE CHECKBOX their money management group checked incorrectly. Insane.
"Why don't these sheep take action..."
Because TV didn't tell them too. Or it told them to bomb an abortion clinic.
I think ultimately whether I trust the flat tax or not depends on who writes it and shepherds it through congress.
I'm in favor of Social Security reform, for example, but I didn't need to look at the details of Bush's plan to know that it was ultimately a non-solution to a very real problem that choose to put money into the pockets of corporations while not addressing the real underlying issues (see also: Iraq, Medicare Prescriptions).
So, if they ressurect Paul Tsongas from the dead, run him in 2008 and he says, yeah, let's go flat tax, I'm with it. Forbes, on the other hand... eh.
All this is to say is that all these things are fine in theory, but the implementation is where it gets ugly. The flat tax law should fit on a single sheet of paper, but you know it never would by the end of it.
There's also a long response I was going to type here about meritocracy and it's relation to taxation. But I think I killed a blogversation as edP's with a meritocracy comment... so I'll hold my tongue here.
(If this converstion goes dead now, I'm going to feel really guilty)
Sorry, one more thing. I do believe the rich should pay more tax, because they have more to lose, and have obviously benefitted more from the current system. My support of the flat tax would be contigent on it making the rich pay more than they are now.
Really it does come back down to the issue of meritocracy (and the problems with that) but I said I'd hold my tongue and I will. At least until it's clear I haven't killed the conversation.
It just seems like the folks who have had the most opportunity by birth and other cultural variables are the ones complaining loudest that a flat tax isn't fair. It speaks to Trendite's doubts about the legitimacy of a meritocracy. Remember, the upper classes have the benefit of inherited wealth, access to credit, and the investment vehicles to forever outpace the rest of us when it comes to generating wealth. If a few newly minted upper middle class folks feel overtaxed, so be it. Consider it their expression of Christian charity.
Okay, I'll bite.
I fucking wish that this society was a true meritocracy; It's not.
As time progresses, we keep re-structuring our society to reward sloth and ignorance.
I wish that our society would reward and encourage intelligence and hard-work, but it doesn't. It serves to pacify the incompetent at the cost of the industrious.
Meritocracy, my aching ass.
I feel the need to back the convo up to the whole "the moderns took the teeth out of Christianity" bit...
If I remember my scripture correctly, the Guy the whole to-do is about said "First, love God above all else. A close second is love your neighbor as you would love yourself." While I would not subject my neighbors to some of the ways I treat myself, I understand that one needs to realize that humanity is an ecology. There is very little you can do to benefit yourself to the exclusion of others which won't come around to bite you in the ass eventually. More importantly, I think the message is that We are closer to God than i can ever be - and that goes for any "i". While "love thy neighbor" may sound like a hippie-pinko-liberal sentiment, I realize it's much harder to do than just avoiding killing them. Well, most of the time...
The root of the hypocricy is in the picking and choosing of scripture because it reflects a view you would like to forward (for example, I don't see how you use OT passages to condemn homosexuality without adhering to the "unclean women need to bring a turtle or 2 doves to the temple for sacrifice so they can be clean" bit). It's just as bad as the new agers who cobble together little pieces of Native American spirituality and pseudo-spiritual mystical crap just because it restates what they already think. No offense, Old Dog, but that practice is most apparent to me in the right-wing bible-thumping crowd.
While personally I think that if the Nazarene were actually perfect, he would have left behind that recipe for feeding multitudes on a couple of fish and a loaf of pumpernickel, I do think that he may have been on to a few things. He clearly would have thought you should give to Ceasar what is Caesar's (which, clearly, is 17% of your annual income).
Trendite - looks like you've only refueled the conversation, so let 'er rip!
Spot on about meritocracy, I hope I didn't come of sounding like some utopian. I do have to disagree with you about society rewarding sloth, however. At no time in the last 80 years has the social safety net been more frayed, leaving more and more folks to get by on their wits and creativity. Since Reagan, the gradual erosion of social protections (trade, unemployment, welfare, and environment) has been uninterrupted, including Clinton (NAFTA, welfare reform). Can you give some examples of how we've restructured to reward layabouts? I'm not for or against what you're arguing politically, but I think the facts don't support you. The only piece of significant social legislation I can think of is the Family Medical Leave Act, and that's not exactly killing us.
On the topic of meritocracy:
I wasn't speaking in the terms of the fiscal government (although I could pull out several relatively minor examples, such as in education spending), but rather from a sociological perspective.
Our modern US society shuns intelligence for spectacle, and embraces the ideal of 'immediate reward' over hard work. We make excuses for everyone who refuses to participate toward a functioning society, and create media geared at the lowest-common denominator.
The construct of personal responsibility is being replaced by the myth of entitlement. Nothing is ever anyone's fault anymore, and blame is immediately shifted to some vague construct or entity.
Kids are told that if they fail, that it isn't their fault, but rather the blame lies within the greater society. Children don't want to grow up to be scientists or mathematicians, but rather want instant stardom (which they will never attain).
When I was growing up I was terrified that if I didn't work hard to learn, or if I was to lazy to go out and make money (I started working as a dishwasher at age 12) that I would be destitute. My parents reinforced this belief. If I failed, it was my fault. And it was.
I did my damnedest to go out and read as much as I could, and watch movies and television shows which had redeemable elements therein.
Fear of failure has always driven Americans to excellence. Now we just make up excuses to fail.
Spot-on regarding fear of failure, dc. I heard an interesting term during an interview discussing America's tendency to "revel in the victim." We are building a society that promotes the idea of entitlement. You don't need to work hard if the world owes you anyway. One good lawsuit and you're set.
So true. Just look at the amount of debt twenty-somethings carry around. They can't wait for anything (I pine for a plasma TV while typing this). It's called 'Affluenza'. Goddamn Baby Boomers started all this shit. I feel so blessed to be the generation after them. Social constipation is what I call it. We won't be able to truly move forward until they die off and Rod Stewart quits touring.
One good lawsuit and I'm set?
WHOO HOOO!!!!
Stop the motherfucking presses - bigsoda and I are on or near the same page on this:
"The root of the hypocricy is in the picking and choosing of scripture because it reflects a view you would like to forward (for example, I don't see how you use OT passages to condemn homosexuality without adhering to the "unclean women need to bring a turtle or 2 doves to the temple for sacrifice so they can be clean" bit). It's just as bad as the new agers who cobble together little pieces of Native American spirituality and pseudo-spiritual mystical crap just because it restates what they already think. No offense, Old Dog, but that practice is most apparent to me in the right-wing bible-thumping crowd."
No offense to the OD either...but for reasons that are different from Dev's above - I agree that the blue-tie crowd picks and chooses Scripture all the time...
...but here's what's worse - what makes my blood boil about those guys - they give faith that I love a bad name (sorry Bob Jovi). When they say a vote for Bush supports Christian values they lie (sorry Old Dog) - and if they use the name of the Savior (which thankfully few of them do, but they imply it - and feel free to say your Savior ed you flesh eater) they blaspheme. Further, their misappropriation of Scripture gives all the ammo ChrisB and DC use at will here and the Christians who say a bush is God's candidate deserve it - I don't.
I'm a hypocrite and a boob for a lot of reasons - but I sure as hell wouldn't use my faith to tell someone to vote for the current administration - or to cast one party as a symbol of my faith. That is not because I think my faith shouldn't guide my actions in public and private life (it does) - but to abuse the name of Christ to get George fucking W Bush elected?!?!?!?! They deserve scorn, infamy and worse.
Anyhow, bigsoda might want to back away from his position since I agree with it.
More papers to grade.
Fuck.
Oh, regarding the original Forbes proposal, what does he say about payroll taxes? Would people pay this on top of the 17%.
uh, payroll tax is an important piece of the pie. Check it out:
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp
Oh, regarding this from your original post:
"He also asserted that we could afford the current war and that is NOT necessarily a major contributor to the deficit. Is that possible?"
You betcha. The things we pay payroll tax for, the daily expenses of government and the percentages of working against those who need benefits (who are done working) will eventually outstrip the costs of this costly war (just because we can probably afford it doesn't mean it's a good thing!!!)...but there are good and bad things that are going to cost America more money than Misadventures in Insurgentsitting in the long run.
Only on a blog comment field could a discussion on a tax proposal turn into a culture war with religious overtones.
Ya gotta love it.
It is interesting that much of why we're here in the first place revolves around religion and taxation.
To be clear, I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-bullshit. Same with the taxes. Forbes plan may not be the end-all, but he got me thinking.
I don't know about payroll taxes, but I did hear that depreciation schedules would be removed and business taxes would be simplified in general - mostly to eliminate the loopholes DC Liar alluded to.
This brings out yet another hypocrisy in the current administration - they're forcing businesses to sign off on their books (to assure us that they're not bilking everyone of their pensions) but offering obscene tax cuts at the same time.
Chris,
I apogolize if I missed this point already made but it's late and there are about 387 replies to your post. But my thought is simply this:
I don't think it's fair that someone like me should be paying the same percentage to "that FICA guy" as those who make millions of dollars. Fuck-a that.
That's not fair (immature argument noted). It keeps me at the same level of living I'm used to while it makes rich richer.
Isn't that a counter-point to you?
Di
Lady Di --
I think the idea (for half of us at least) is that the rich would actually end up paying more.
George W., whose tax filing is meticulously studied, only paid 25% of the 738,000 he made last year. And that's with not a single accounting trick. One imagines when he's off the radar he will be paying considerably less.
Back when I was a city slicker, sole provider of a family of four, living in a two bedroom evanston condo I was paying 25% after all deductions on $80k. Since then, the crash and outsourcing have nearly halved my income, and I now pay very little. W. reduced my taxes by driving the economy into a ditch.
But it's a little odd to me that W. and I were in the same bracket anyway.
Did I just undermine the argument? Ah, shoot.
"unclean women need to bring a turtle or 2 doves to the temple for sacrifice"
Gospel of Ozzy, 6.vi.6
Post a Comment