doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Inside the FBI National Tracing Center

Jim, in a typical capitalistic democratic country with a graduated income tax, the bottom 50% of earners make so little, and contribute so little to the tax base as to be next to meaningless from a government revenue standpoint.

They shouldn't pay income tax.

And please don't confuse who I'm talking about with those on the dole. I'm talking about low income earners.

They should pay no income tax.

The tax system should be vastly simpler, so that millions and millions of lawyers, accountants and IRS people need to use their considerable intellect in more useful ways.

The income tax system should NOT be an instrument of effecting government policy.

Simply not paying income tax is not a good measure of what you are trying to allude to.

A more useful number is who depends on the government for the majority of their monthly income. BTW, that would include ALL civil servants, at every layer of government. Probably a more scary number.

Sorry cback, 'they' should all pay income tax. Sure, maybe a token amount, but it should be highlighted on their pay stub, and it should be subject to changing, based on policy. Those who aren't invested in the process, don't value product, at all.

James here's exactly what I said:
"47% of our citizens pay no income tax and many are on the government dole."
I clumped then into one group. My point is that someone who pays no tax could care less about how much the others pay and are primarily interested in the "free" benefits they will receive.The Lowest tax rate(10%) in our Country is for those earning between $0 and $9075. If you work at all you'll likely ending up owing some income tax.
Never having been in this bracket; I have no idea what they really end up paying but with deductions it's probably close to nothing.
I have been in favor of a flat tax with a one page instruction form for years but there's too many people making too much money off the complexity of out taxing system for this to realistically fly.
Jim

I'm
With you on the flat tax thing Jim. Craig, I hear what your saying, just think the benefits would outweigh that negative. One benefit should be a reduction of "benefits".

I agree completely with craigd here. Those with no skin in the game usually have no regard or respect for where the largess from those who carry most or all of the burden comes from. It's little different than the behavior of a teenager who wastes gasoline, food, utilities, etc., until they have to start paying for it.

When I went to a Donald Trump rally back in March of this year, I was talking to a black guy who had brought his daughter to hear Trump speak. One of the things he said that really struck me was that he said really understood why "you guys support Trump." I asked what he meant, and he went on to say that he meant meant white middle class people who were most likely to be working and paying to support all of the Welfare programs. I was very surprised to hear that, and more surprised to see that he wasn't happy with the status quo. He not only understood the anger and frustration with the direction the country was taking, but he was there to support Trump because he felt that he would do more to lift the whole nation. There's a certain dignity in working, producing, and contributing versus just taking, and I could see that this particular black guy knew that and wasn't happy that his people had been steered in the opposite direction.

If the comfortable weren't pushing it so hard I'd be less dubious. Look who bought into lower taxes for business and the rich and now are holding dirty end of the stick.

More Liberal Left Socialist B.S., and ignorant of the facts to boot!

Our Corporations in the U.S. pay the highest corporate tax rate in the entire developed world, and it has been causing them to flee to other more friendly countries and to be less likely to invest in new facilities here in the U,S.

No poor man ever gave me a job.

Reagan proved that lowering taxes was a great stimulus for the economy, and even Bill Clinton benefited mightily from mostly staying the course (along with gutting military spending as Obama is doing now... someone will have to pay the piper and rebuild that, and when they do, Liberal Democrats will point the finger of blame at them for increasing spending... just as they did to Bush.)

The rich who appear to be paying lower tax rates now have far fewer deductions than way back when the highest income tax rate was near 90% but deductions and exemptions allowed many rich people and companies to pay nothing or virtually nothing. The effective tax rates on the rich are quite a bit higher now than when King Brown was a young Socialist.

The people getting the short end of the stick are those who are unemployed due to insane trade deals, unfettered illegal immigration (which also drives down wages), and ta-da... ObamaCare, which is drastically increasing the cost of hiring new workers and keeping the present ones.

Insane trade deals.

Let's look at NAFTA.

I live 30 min from a large GM plant. The discussion is on right now on whether to shutter it permanently. Why? Labour rates.

Doing this on my phone but last week I was looking at a chart of automotive factory average labour rates around the world. In constant currencies ( and I'm doing this from memory) the US and Canada were on either side of $20 per hour. Mexico was $3 per hour.

Now, I'm a big fan of free trade. But it doesn't work when one side has labour costs 1/7th of the other side. There needs to have been some kind of cost of living adjustment worked into the deal, not unfettered completely free trade.

That's why both our countries have lost jobs. These deals are inherently unfair.

The Canada / US deal was relatively fair. Including Mexico on the same terms was asinine.

When Canada's comfortably wealthy lowered its corporate tax rate a few short years ago, did Canada loose any corporate tax revenue? Have all social justice programs intended to elevate Canadians out of poverty continued uninterrupted? Is the Canadian tentacle of the clin'on foundation set up to take advantage of Canada's corporate welfare black eye on an otherwise fair and just nation? Will you lobby your colleagues to band together and pressure the foundation to get a little control over their 'administrative' costs? Awe, you know I'm just kidding, please continue as the new business friendly, wink corporate ceo job killing tax haven, Canada.

craig, as I said, I'd be less dubious about a flat tax if the comfortable weren't pushing it so hard. The rich and influential look after their interests first as the rest of us watch their sectors stagnating and social welfare lengthening. Public investment in commercial and military research and development rises in Canada while productivity falls and business lines its pockets.

The US Department of Defense--- funded by American taxpayers---will continue to be the global technology developer, as it was in the 20th century i.e. the Internet, fibre optics, transistors, micro chips, smaller and smaller digital computers, advanced materials. Fortunes abound but increasingly the middle class lives on crumbs from the outstretched hand of charity.

All reflected in the phenomenal and unprecedented attractions of Bernie and Donald and a country with the least popular presidential nominees in its history. And, what kind of a flat tax is critical. There are several. Anyone selling flat tax because it's simple makes me wary.