What Obama means by tax the wealthy
Find a Conversation
What Obama means by tax the wealthy
| Sat, 06-28-2008 - 11:14am |
What Obama means by tax the wealthy
Here's a closer look at how the Democratic candidate defines well-off for different households, and what his proposals will mean for them.
Here's a closer look at how the Democratic candidate defines well-off for different households, and what his proposals will mean for them.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/obama_wealthy_taxes/index.htm?postversion=2008062809


Pages
This is a link to a chart assembled by the fairtax.org group comparing the present system, flat tax, and fair tax.
It's a 3 page PDF document, so I can't cut an paste it.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxFlatTaxIncomeTaxComparisonChart.pdf
Well, that certainly fits your argument, but it isn't true. If you think about EVERYONE paying 10-15%, considering how many right now pay less than that or NOTHING (either because of tax loopholes or legit deductions), the government would be just fine.
The flat tax proposals at 17-20% are inflated because they allow two deductions: (1) a generous personal exemption and (2) an immediate write-off of all investments in capital goods. A flat tax proposal at 10-15% would not include/allow those deductions. So I suppose I'd be for either one of them when you consider a rate of 17% but with those additional deductions would bring my rate down further to around 14-15%. Just seems to me that giving everyone the same rate with no deductions at all is easier and more fair, but even at 17-20% with the deductions...its' better than our current system.
Furthermore, do you have any proof of your out of thin air assertion that a flat-tax would not be enough? Or is that just your opinion? I'm curious because it matters to me...because studies have shown that the flat tax will generate MORE than enough revenue, and if they're wrong, then I'd have to reconsider the whole flat tax idea:
"Advantage of the flat tax: pro-growth. Because the flat tax is pro-savings and pro-investment, it would add as much as 2 percentage points to the nation's economic growth rate. And even if it only increased the annual growth rate from the current 2.5 percent to the 3.3 percent rate of the Reagan era:
Over six years, that would add $2.3 trillion to the nation's output of goods and services.
It would produce $550 billion of additional revenues for government - more than enough to pay for all the tax cuts in the Contract With America, including the $500 child tax credit."
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba195.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm
10% is 10% is 10%. Of course it seems like the "burden" is higher when you compare it to someone who makes more than you do. Someone who makes more than you do is always going to look like they've got it better.
That's the nice thing about math. 10% for me is no more a percentage of my income than 10% is for Bill Gates.
<
I am by no means an expert on fair tax, but this site is pretty comprehensive on all that would be in it.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_mainThanks Laura, but I have read a lot about the Fair tax.
<<
I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure
Pages