That’s funny...but I disagree. We have to stop telling people what to do and forcing people to do things. Everyone knows you should save for retirement, so save for retirement.

And the incentive would be, we will tax you less and you can put as much in your retirement account as you want with post-tax dollars. You can do whatever you want with your post-tax dollars. We would have the liberty to do whatever with our money. Right now, there are limits to how you can save for retirement due to tax laws. This would eliminate that and free people up to do what they want with their money.

Look, this is all a pipe dream anyway, because they’re never going to do away with social security (hell, they can’t even leave it alone as it is and you get nowhere near what you pay into it) or any of the other programs that contribute to less take home pay after taxes.

But I don’t think a 10% flat tax would hurt retirement saving, and I disagree that the government should incentivize it. In fact, I think it would be better for people, because you take home 90% of your pay and then can save as much as you want for retirement.

two words, "consumption tax". then you can tax all the money.

Neither and both.

It’s a principle issue for me.

1) everyone should have to pay taxes
2) it should be equal for everyone (that’s fairness. Saying, “it would burden people making $20,000 a year more than someone making $200,000 a year” has nothing to do with fairness. Fair is equal for everyone. It would be unfair if tax law said everyone has to pay $10,000 per year. Obviously the $20,000 income earner would be unfairly taxed, as would the $200,000 income earner in that context. A flat tax percentage is fair across the board, especially if taken out every pay period.
3) the current system that allows for higher percentages is inherently unfair to top earners, and allows for that system to perpetuate. Because people at the bottom get money back that they didn’t pay in, it keeps the percentage high for people who earn more money. That’s unfair, in principle.

Unpopular opinions according to some people for sure, but I’m all about fairness. And saying one person should have to earn $.30 before he gets to take home any money to support people who can’t or won’t better themselves is unfair, too. This gets into a larger discussion about government expenditures, but the flat tax is fair, to say nothing about how much money the government spends. Spending is the true issue, and I’m at a point where I don’t care about it as much as I care about reasonable taxes for all. Maybe if it is 10%, the government will finally learn to stay within a budget (ok, there is no hope of that).

Most of the plans have a standard deduction between $10-20k, where no one would pay tax on that initial amount. That gives everyone a small amount of untaxed income to meet basic necessities.

The way small businesses are taxed would be an issue, but I’m sure it could be worked out.

You have to pay quarterly based on expected revenue for the next quarter or something weird like that, right?

I said it briefly before, and I’m spending most of my time arguing for a flat tax because I think it’s better than what we have now, but I’m for the Fair Tax, which is a national sales tax, and would work a lot of these issues out, such as real estate and investment type things.

I am in.

Oh I don’t disagree including the social security tax. I would love to do away with all of it, with that said the bleeding heart social services abusers aren’t ever going to relinquish their blood sucking mail box money life styles

It’s about fairness. Equality. Paying $20,000 on a $200,000 income wouldn’t not hurt. Paying $2,000 on a $20,000 income would also hurt.

It isn’t flawed, it’s a different opinion. The person who makes $200,000 a year should give up more to taxes because it will hurt less? It’s his money. Taxes aren’t about hurting, or they shouldn’t be. Either we are all equal or we aren’t. We all live in this country and we should all contribute to it equally. 10% from each person is equal. No one is saying you have to make $20,000 and can never do better for yourself. My first job out of college I made $26,000 and had to pay state income tax in New Jersey. I didn’t like making that little and also really didn’t like paying state income taxes, so I took a better paying job in Texas and pay no state income tax.

I’m in. That really does ensure everyone pays and lowers the possibility of black markets.

I think homes should be exempt because a) everyone needs to live somewhere and b) a 15% tax on a home would be ridiculous.

*all of what I’m saying in this thread is a pipe dream and would be impossible to pass, as well as unpopular with at least half the country. This is all hypothetical and we are way to far down the rabbit hole for any of this to actually be implemented.

That’s correct. All of what I’m saying is hypothetical and will never happen. But it should.

Maybe I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying they are not affected the same? If so, I see percentages are different in your world. That's flawed thinking.

Look at as depriving food from an overweight person vs a malnourished one. See which one that would be more harmful to.

that would be changing the argument.

Overweight people can also be malnourished. In fact, they may very well be malnourished. Regardless, we're (well, I am) talking math, more specifically percentages, and now you're talking health.

Moving on to stay on topic.

The problem could be solved if the US stopped acting like a 65% across the board tax nation and giving away too much stuff.

When people are asked what is the biggest expenditure of the govt, most of the time they mention the military...not even close. around a 700B military budget is dwarfed by the 1.5T healthcare budget giveaway, and the rest of the the entitlement spending is more than military.

But, we all want the 65% tax hamburger on the effective 10% budget. It doesn't work, never will. Problem is, we can't fix the way people think.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

A good start would be making actually paying taxes or serving in the military a requirement to vote. Now that is opening a can of worms!

Back at the beginning of this country, you had to be a landowner to vote. I am not arguing for the motivation that created that law, but there was some wisdom to it.

I am all for some sort of mandatory service, whether in the military, or the civil service, or some other national program that pays people to work. We have plenty of people able to work, but instead we pay them to sit idle. Kind of similar to paying farmers not to farm...doesn't make sense on the face of it.

I wonder if there is some thread that we would all agree on. Seriously...anything?

The THF is the tower of babel...literally!

there is a lot of housing that is going up in Texas, obviously. On the outskirts of town there are new apartments going up everywhere.A friend stopped in to inquire of renting a apartment. She was told it was 1500 dollars and that they only cater to folks on government assistance.
In my opinion, its the reason we are getting the bad element in Texas. The new housing is inviting dependents from across the nation to come to Texas. Which way do I think the dependents will vote? dem of course. Just like the illegals , they are using the welfare class from across the nation to come in and flip the state...

when we started using the tax code to threat social and economic ills is when the shix hit the fan

We went from a flat tax to a over weight woman with a flat chest?

This. Think of all the money you'd get that you aren't getting now from unreported income. Drug dealers, illegals gambling. Those segments pay nothing. They would be kicking in on all the high dollar purchases they make.