How About A Tax Cut To Zero

@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
November 2, 2008 3:10pm CST
Ron Paul once said that he supported a flat tax, a zero percent flat tax. With all the ads about a vote for Obama is a vote for anyone making under 250k. Then we hear Gov. Richardson making claim that it will be for those under 150k. Then you hear Biden say 120k. You hear that McCain will only give a tax cut to those that do not deserve a tax cut. Of course I have never understood why someone making 251k does not deserve their earn, but someone who wake 250k does, but that is not my point. My point is even if your income taxes are cut you are still paying income tax, assuming you are one of those who does pay income taxes. You did the work, 100% of it not 60%, not 70% of the work. So why should you only receive 60, 70, or 80% of your check? Abolishing the income tax for a national sales tax is the only tax that is fair. So instead of debating over who will give you more of a tax cut and who will not maybe the argument should be why do we even have the income tax.
2 people like this
10 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
2 Nov 08
I read about the Fair Tax that supports sales tax only and am in support of that but it's not on the table right now. Those in favor of it is growing so maybe one day we will see it. I don't think now is the time because people aren't spending in this economic cycle but, when it rebounds, it should be up for consideration again IMO.
3 people like this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
3 Nov 08
Our country has both because the sales tax does not raise enough money and it hits the poorest people the hardest. Those that are too poor to pay income tax still to pay sales tax and that does not seem fair to me at all.
@Kowgirl (3490)
• United States
2 Nov 08
I laugh every time the "income" tax gets mentioned. People need to read more ...especially the tax books. The income tax is a voluntary tax. You volunteer to give the Federal Reserve Bank(not your government) a percentage of what you earn when you sign a w-2 form. This money is then used by this (privately owned) bank to loan to our government so they can run the USA. It has to be paid back (with interest, just like a credit card) This is why we have so much debt. Haven't you ever wondered how the government could owe so much money to itself? Doesn't that sound stupid? Or why the government just didn't make more money to pay off this debt? They are under the thumb of this bank and its owners. This is something the President and any branch of our government does not want you to know. You don't have to pay an income tax so why volunteer to do so? Just say no.Don't volunteer to give these people your hard earned money. It your choice. J.F.Kennedy was in the process of getting rid of the IRS. He was going to wipe them out so our government could take over the process of making paper money then there would be no more taxes. Too bad we can't get another president with the guts to stand up to these people.
2 people like this
@Kowgirl (3490)
• United States
3 Nov 08
Then what you are saying is that the book that explains why and how "income tax" is VOLUNTARY is a misprint. No Wesley Snipes was put in prison for avoiding paying his fair share because he DID sign on that line that is a legal paper that holds him responsible for paying the tax. I for one have not paid an "income" tax for many, many years. Just take a look at the papers you sign and read the fine print. There you find you have an option to not pay this tax. Most business want their employees to believe they have to pay this tax because they have been pushed into getting all their employees to volunteer to do so. Even teachers have been told to teach the tax to children and brainwash them into submission before they are even old enough to work. Show me the LAW that says we don't have a right to choose...You nor anyone else can because there isn't one, ONLY CODES.
1 person likes this
@Kowgirl (3490)
• United States
4 Nov 08
Oh I almost forgot ...if you can come up with the LAW (not the codes) you will be the happy winner of $50,000 that has been on the table for years and even the IRS can't touch it...why? because there isn't one. This $50,000 challenge was given by Mr. William Conklin. The challenge was to (1) Show how to file a federal income tax return without waving one's 5th amendment rights and (2) identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax. So far it hasn't been done and many have tried. Even the people who worked for the IRS have failed.
1 person likes this
@lvaldean (1612)
• United States
3 Nov 08
This belief that income tax is Voluntary is why people like Wesley Snipes are in prison today. It is not, let me say this again; INCOME TAX is not VOLUNTARY. It is a legally sanctioned taxation of your and my earned income. It has been so for many years. There is nothing voluntary about it. It has been challenged many times as unconstitutional. Each of these challenges has been lost. The personal income tax is legal. We may not like it but it is involuntary and it is legal. Until such time as a new system is put in place and the laws that were passed to make personal income tax legal in this country are overturned anyone who suggests that personal income tax is either voluntary or illegal will be facing fines and prison terms.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
3 Nov 08
Because the liberals want an income tax. Most people don't seem to know that originally, the only incomes taxed were corporate profits and capital gains, and the government was supposed to collect it's revenue from tariff fees.... not from individuals. Taxing someone on their labor was not allowed because as free people our labor was our property. To tax are labor was to make us owned by the government, which means that basically we are all slaves to the government. Be sure to thank the democrats for that bright idea. The original income tax was set at 1% if I remember correctly... which meant that for every dollar you owed the government a penny. Our government has sure gotten greedy over our money.
1 person likes this
@Kowgirl (3490)
• United States
4 Nov 08
Hold on it's not the government who gets the money ..It goes to the (private owned)Federal Reserve Banks Which is not affiliated with the government. The USA has to borrow from this bank and pay back with interest. This my friend is why the government is in debt.
• United States
5 Nov 08
I know all about the federal reserve... my statement stands It is the Congress that raises the taxes, not the federal reserve.
• United States
3 Nov 08
Having an income tax is stupid. It is like we are being taxed for working hard. And those who do not work, do not have to pay it. They are being rewarded for not working. I wonder who came up with this brilliant idea.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Nov 08
They are being rewarded by not having to pay a tax that working people have to pay.
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
4 Nov 08
Well then next time you see someone starving then you can tell them that they are being very selfish for not giving the government some of the money they do not have.
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
3 Nov 08
How are people being rewarded for not working? I fail to see how not having any income is a reward. I am on welfare because I am unable to work due to illness I do not see that as a reward but a curse. I used to earn over $50,000 a year and now I can barely afford to eat and you say I am being rewarded for this. I really fail to see.
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
2 Nov 08
A flat tax of any kind would have to be a LOT higher to raise the same amount of money our progressive system does now. Let's take a very crude example off the top of my head. Okay, progressive system first, in our population of ten people: One person makes a million a year, and s/he's taxed 40% -- $400,000 in revenue Three people make $250k, and they're taxed 33% -- $247,500 in revenue The other six make $45k, and they're taxed 28% -- $75,600 in revenue This progressive system raises $723,100 in total revenue. Now, the question is, given these conditions, what percentage would the tax have to be to raise the same $723,100 from the same ten people, and with them all being taxed the same percentage? The total income in this population is $2,020,000. The desired revenue is at least $723,100. So, the question is: $723,100 is what percentage of $2,020,000? To find this, divide the first amount by the second ("1 is what percentage of 8?"? 1/8), and we get: 35.8% So how does this compare to the progressive tax system's numbers? The millionaire gets a 4.2% tax cut. The decently well-off three get a 2.8% tax HIKE. The 'average joe' (who makes less than "Joe the Plumber" made in 2006, by the way) gets a 7.8% tax HIKE. As one can see, the flat tax gives tax cuts to those who need it the least, and tax HIKES to everyone else, with the highest increases going to those making the LEAST. In other words, give more to those who have the most, and take away what little those with the least have to give to them. Does that seem fair to you?
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
3 Nov 08
Last time we wrote you said I am delusional. You though are truly the delusional. Some me where in My discussion I at any point did I discussed the Flat tax. Do you see why no one cares about your opinion, you do not read their discussions. You just go onto an incoherent rant.
• United States
3 Nov 08
"Last time we wrote you said I am delusional. You though are truly the delusional." In other words, "I know you are by what am I". Okay. "Some me where in My discussion I at any point did I discussed the Flat tax." You mean "show me"? I brought up the flat tax to contrast it with the progressive tax system in the U.S. The post was actually more about the progressive system, and how it is fairer when it comes to taxing according to burden.
@fgaloma (163)
• Philippines
3 Nov 08
nice question, why do we even have income tax? i guess income tax are used to build rodes and other community stuffs however, it seems large percentage of our wage has been dedicated to taxes. and it is not fair. i hope somebody in the givernment will take some action not by words.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
3 Nov 08
In Canada we now have a national sales tax and a provincial sales tax. Yet we still pay income tax. So having an American sales tax and a State sales tax will not work. You will still pay income tax because then they will decide what goods deserved to be taxed. In Canada, some goods are taxed both nationally and provincial and other goods are just taxed nationally. And then there are those goods that are not taxed at all because of their importance.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
3 Nov 08
Just goes to show you can only believe none of what you hear and half of what you read!!! If Obama wins, of course the amount will go lower - that has been running around for awhile - he is saying 250k to get in...once there, he'll do what he wants and if Biden is saying 120k - that is probably where it will go to. They all will raise taxes so we the people, support them first, the rest of the world second and the US third - if anything is left. I think they all should be campaigning to cut spending to support other countries and put that money back into the USA until we can support ourselves properly and bring the USA back to the country it should be and has been, and then pick up the world again.
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
3 Nov 08
So if you are too poor to pay income tax you would get hurt instead by a sales tax. How is that fair? I can understand it if you are rich and so you buy more but they get discounts anyway. It is the poor who are hurt by this. I am on a pension and do not pay income tax but I do have to pay sales tax as we have kinds of tax in this country. So you would give the rich a huge tax cut and make the poor worse off so that they can no long afford to buy anything.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
3 Nov 08
What the heck are you talking about, I can understand it if you are rich and so you buy more but they get discounts anyway. Why should the poor not have to contribute to society while the rich bare all the burden? Why should work be taxed in the first place?
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
4 Nov 08
gewcew23 I do not know what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that the poor should support the rich? The whole point is that because they are rich they can afford to pay tax, if a person is so poor that they can barely afford to eat why should they be made to starve by paying tax as well. Or maybe we could go back the medieval life and when a person cannot afford to pay their taxes they are sold into slavery to pay of the debt? Your government needs a certain amount of money to function, I mean just look at how much the military costs. Where is all this money going to come from if you remove income tax? It is stupid to suggest that the poor should pay the same tax as the rich because the poor just do not have that sort of money. If they did they would not be poor. We have a a GST in my country and everyone pays it, but we also have a graded income tax. As to you comment that workers should not be taxed, all income is taxed even if you are so rich you do not need to work. Your sales tax would not generate enough money and it would make life even hard for those who have no money.
• United States
3 Nov 08
that would really suck for the government. It would really not be good for us either.
1 person likes this