Our society is divided into two views: Democrat and Republicans. Democrats want to punish people who work hard and make more money and reward to people who are lazy. Republicans want to reward people who work hard and make more money using their intelligence, business acumen, and hard-work.

Though we are democracy our voice is hardly ever heard. A person sitting next to me might favor increasing taxes on 6-figure income and cutting him slack. I might favor opposite and a fair system so I don't get over tax. Yet, my voice is lost in the process because there are several folks out there who are like person sitting next to me. So is this democracy? I don't think so.

This brings a good debate. Why can't our country restructure the tax system and making it flat % system. Every one pays the same percent tax irrespective of the family size, marital status or income. What is wrong with it? I think that is the most fair system we can ever implement. Yes, people who are not working hard and getting freebie will complain but why should others be penalized for working hard and making more money. This way there is no debate or issues everyone pays same.

What do you all think?

It makes perfect sense. The problem is there are too many people who are lazy at work but would vote a person out of office who tried to enact something like this. There are far more 'B' people than there are 'A' people.

I keep hearing that as a society we need to share the income blah blah blah. My question is when I am busting my a s s off working 60-70 hours to build my business, get more revenue and increase wealth, why should I be penalized with higher tax rate.

I am really frustrated carrying the burden of lazy people and paying them to survive. If you notice these groups are the people who like to party, have kids left and right, don't do proper family or financial planning and we are stuck with their bill. This is not a fair system.

What can be done to change this?

I share the pain. The problem is there are too many like that and not enough of us to make a difference at the voting booth. This will never change as long as the gov validates and approves irresponsible behavior.

When I went to other foreign countries they don't have the homeless problems we have. Yet they have no welfare either. How can we have so many homeless yet the biggest social services system in the world? The answer is those people on the street are there by choice. Mostly druggies or alcoholics. The live by the handouts etc they get. The gov looks at them and thinks we aren't doing enough to help. They believe those people don't want to be on the street. That if we invent more programs that will solve the problem.

What should be done is the elimination of most social programs. Create more of a darwinian society with emphasis on self reliance. Let the high producers decide for themselves what to do their wealth.

In general business minded people will create more industry to enrich themselves the more. By doing so it creates jobs for everyone else. If people knew they could not be slackers they would be employed in those jobs.

Taxes could be levied at a flat rate or better still in a reverse progressive system. Where the highest earners pay the lowest rates. That would motivate people to earn more so they pay less in taxes.

quote:

When I went to other foreign countries they don't have the homeless problems we have. Yet they have no welfare either. How can we have so many homeless yet the biggest social services system in the world? The answer is those people on the street are there by choice. Mostly druggies or alcoholics. The live by the handouts etc they get. The gov looks at them and thinks we aren't doing enough to help. They believe those people don't want to be on the street. That if we invent more programs that will solve the problem.

Davdah


First I apologize for even responding in this bacteria's thread, but I could not let your remark go unanswered.

How do you know this to be true??? It is merely your opinion.

The truth of the matter is within the reporting of the reasons for why there are homeless. The government has a mentality like you in that respect. There are different reasons that people are homeless, therefore there are different solutions to get them back on their feet. Soup kitchens and shelters are not the answer to the homeless. As ususal , treat the symptoms and not the cause . (the american way)

A clear and proven evidence that the countries that adopted flat tax system have prospered without a question.

Thanks to globalization, many nations are adopting better tax policies. Certain politicians still believe in high tax rates, of course, but they feel compelled to move in the opposite direction since it is now increasingly easy for labor and capital to escape oppressive tax regimes by crossing national borders.

This is why so many nations had to lower personal income tax rates after the Thatcher and Reagan rate reductions – and why many nations have been lowering tax rates on business in response to Ireland’s incredibly successful 12.5 per cent corporate tax. They know the geese that lay the golden eggs will fly away if they impose bad tax law.

Economists like tax competition because it leads to better tax policy. Two of the most important rules of good tax law are low tax rates and less double taxation of saving and investment. Fiscal rivalry between nations leads them to adopt both.

Maximum personal income tax rates, for instance, are 23 percentage points lower today in developed nations than they were back in 1980.Corporate income tax rates have dropped by almost 20 percentage points. And many nations, including Scandinavian countries, are reducing tax rates on individual capital income and lowering taxes on wealth.

All these reforms boost economic performance by lowering the marginal tax rate on productive behavior. It is no surprise that nations that enact these policies grow faster and create more jobs.

Governments that try to keep tax rates high, by contrast, suffer from stagnation and joblessness. Politicians from these countries whine about ‘‘harmful’’ tax competition from Ireland, Slovakia, Estonia, and the United States, but they should look in the mirror if they want to find who really deserves to be blamed.

Instead of fighting to preserve existing tax systems that punish job creation and success, governments should make a virtue out of necessity and adopt pro-growth tax reforms. Ideally, they should scrap their tax codes and implement a flat tax. About a dozen nations already have implemented this simple and fair tax code, and the list gets longer every year - thanks to tax competition.

How would a flat tax work for individual taxpayers?

Compared to traditional tax systems, a flat tax is extremely simple. Households get only one exemption -a generous allowance based on family size - and then pay a low rate on any income above that amount.

They do not need to worry about reporting dividends, interest and other forms of business/capital income. Those forms of income are taxed at the business level, thus obviating any need to tax them at the individual level since that would violate the principle of no double taxation.

How would a flat tax work for businesses? All businesses, from the largest multinational to a corner pub, would play by the same rules. Companies would add up their receipts (how much revenue came in) and then subtract their costs (salaries, cost of raw materials, and expenses for new tools and machinery).

This would give them their taxable income, which would be taxed at the low rate.

What are the advantages of a flat tax?

There are two principal arguments for a flat tax- growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because current tax systems, with high rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment, reduce growth, destroy jobs and lower income. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the tax bias against saving and investment, it would boost an economy’s performance.

However, the most persuasive feature of a flat tax for many people is its fairness.

The complicated documents, instruction manuals and numerous forms that taxpayers struggle to decipher would be replaced by a brief set of instructions. The entire tax code could be based on two simple postcard-sized forms.

This radical reform appeals to citizens who not only resent the time and expense consumed by filing their own tax forms, but also suspect that the existing maze of credits, deductions and exemptions gives a special advantage to those who wield political power and can afford expert tax advisers.

If enacted, a flat tax would yield major benefits, including:

Faster economic growth. A flat tax would spur increased work, saving and investment.

By increasing incentives to engage in productive economic behavior, it would also boost the economy’s long-term growth rate.

Instant wealth creation. All income-producing assets would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate.

Simplicity. Complexity is a hidden tax that requires record-keeping, form preparation, lawyers, accountants and other resources to comply with the current system.

Fairness. A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes.

No longer would the tax code penalize success and discriminate against citizens on the basis of income.

An end to micromanaging and political favoritism. A flat tax gets rid of all deductions, loopholes, credits and exemptions.

Politicians would lose all ability to pick winners and losers, reward friends and punish enemies, and use the tax code to impose their values on the economy.

Increased civil liberties. A flat tax would eliminate almost all sources of conflict between taxpayers and the government.

Moreover, infringements on freedom and privacy would fall dramatically, since the government would no longer need to know the intimate details of each taxpayer’s financial assets.

Global competitiveness. In a remarkable development, former communist nations are leading a global tax reform revolution. Estonia was the first to adopt a flat tax, implementing a 26 per cent rate in 1994, just a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The other two Baltic republics of the former Soviet Union enacted flat taxes in the mid-1990s, with Latvia choosing a 25 per cent rate and Lithuania picking 33 per cent. Along with other free-market reforms, the flat tax significantly improved economic growth, and the ‘Baltic Tigers’ became role models for the region. Learning from its neighbors, Russia stunned the world by adopting a 13 per cent flat tax, which went into effect in 2001.

The Russian flat tax quickly yielded positive results: the economy prospered and revenues poured into government coffers since tax evasion and avoidance became much less profitable. The flat tax then spread to Serbia, which in 2003 chose a 14 per cent rate. Slovakia hopped on the bandwagon the following year with a 19 per cent flat tax, as did Ukraine, which chose a 13per cent rate. Earlier this year, Romania joined the flat tax revolution with a 16 per cent tax rate, and Georgia adopted a 12per cent rate. This year, Kyrgyzstan adopted a 10 per cent flat tax, giving it the honor, at least temporarily, of having the lowest rate in the world.

The flat tax revolution has been so successful that Estonia is lowering its rate to keep pace with other nations: it is now down to 24 per cent and will drop to 20 per cent by 2007.Lithuania is in the process of lowering its 33 per cent flat tax to a more reasonable 24 per cent, and the Latvian government wants to reduce its tax rate from 25 per cent to 15 per cent.

Lawmakers in Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Hungary are also considering tax reform. Last but not least, the opposition parties in the Czech Republic have promised to implement a 15 per cent flat tax regime if they win the upcoming elections.

No discussion of the flat tax is complete without a mention of Hong Kong. After World War II, Hong Kong was one of the poorest places on the planet. But a flat tax was adopted in 1947, and this system - combined with other free-market policies - led to dramatic increases in economic performance. Today, Hong Kong’s optional flat tax (taxpayers can choose to participate in a so-called progressive scheme) should serve as a role model for other jurisdictions.

Traditional income tax systems punish the economy, impose heavy compliance costs on taxpayers, reward special interests and make a nation less competitive. A flat tax would dramatically reduce these ill effects.

More importantly, it would reduce government power over the lives of taxpayers and get it out of the business of trying to micromanage the economy.

There will never be a tax that is good for the economy. But the flat tax moves the system much closer to where it should be - raising the revenues that government demands, but in the least destructive and least intrusive way possible.


http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032006a.cfm

Instituting a Flat Tax Benefits You

President Bush is calling for a complete overhaul of the broken U.S. tax code, and his Advisory Panel is holding hearings to make recommendations for reform. As I testified to the Panel earlier this month, instituting the flat tax is the right answer.

Our current income tax system is a catalog of favors for special interests and a chamber of horrors for the rest of America. As a country, we spend more time filing taxes than we spend building every car, truck, and van produced in the United States. To put this in perspective, it takes the average taxpayer over 26 hours to file a standard 1040, which has caused over 60 percent of Americans to pay a professional to complete their taxes. Simply complying with the complex tax code costs $194 billion each year, or about $650 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Aside from the tax system’s complexity and unfairness, it also inhibits saving, investment, and job creation; it imposes a heavy burden on working families; and it undermines the integrity of the democratic process. The U.S. tax system cannot be repaired by tinkering or fine-tuning. It must be completely replaced with a simple and more efficient alternative. Of the many proposed reform measures, the flat tax best meets the goal of collecting revenue in the simplest, fairest, and most transparent manner possible.

The flat tax will replace the current tax code with a flat-rate income tax that treats all Americans equally. All income is taxed only once and at one rate. There are no breaks for special interests and no loopholes for powerful lobbies, just a simple tax system that treats every American the same.

Individuals and businesses will simply complete a tax return the size of a postcard. All deductions and credits would be eliminated, while the only income not subject to tax would be a generous personal exemption for every American. For example, a family of four could be exempt from the first $40,000 of income. This personal deduction would be indexed to inflation and the flat tax rate could be calculated to be revenue neutral, so as to not increase the deficit in the process of enacting this important reform. Additionally, according to a study by the former chief economist for Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, national income would be 5.7 percent larger after five year under the flat tax than under the current system. That means over $500 billion in increased output or more than $3,000 in additional income for a typical family of four.

One competing idea-- the national sales tax-- exhibits the perception of efficiency, but we cannot introduce such a powerful new tax collecting regime unless the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is repealed (a highly unlikely event). Otherwise, we risk the harmful reality of having to pay both a national sales tax and a federal income tax. Therefore, those in favor of modernizing the current code should work towards enacting the flat tax. It solves the problem and it is politically achievable.

Every American will benefit under a flat tax system. An increase in national income will increase charitable giving, lower interest rates will more than offset the loss of the mortgage deduction in the current system, the income exemption will continue the tax code's progressive precedent, saving for your retirement or children’s education will be easier, the marriage penalty will be eliminated, the deduction for dependent children will double, and every taxpayer will see their tax rates reduced.

For the sake of fairness, simplicity, and an improved economy, I strongly urge the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform to recommend the flat tax.

Former House Majority Leader **** Armey currently serves as co-chairman of FreedomWorks, a national grassroots organization fighting for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.

http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2269

4now, most of the homeless are there by choice. Nearly all have substance abuse problems. We have free programs for them. They choose not to use them. They would rather stay on the street supporting their habit instead of making their lives better.

If the gov were to round them all up and mandate a drug program that they could not walk out of that would do a lot to fix things. If you're on the street there is no compensatory attendance. We can thank the ACLU for that.


How do I know? I've known enough of them to know. Talk to people who actually work in a place that tries to help these people. You'll see. It isn't greedy corporations throwing people to the streets. It isn't even people not being educated enough. It drugs and alcohol. Its the ease with which a person has the exercisable right to be a druggie or drunk and there isn't a thing we can do about it. How is it that someone who doesn't speak English and is not even legally able to apply for a job can avoid being homeless? If they can maintain somewhat of a standard of living there is no excuse.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
4now, most of the homeless are there by choice. Nearly all have substance abuse problems. We have free programs for them. They choose not to use them. They would rather stay on the street supporting their habit instead of making their lives better.

If the gov were to round them all up and mandate a drug program that they could not walk out of that would do a lot to fix things. If you're on the street there is no compensatory attendance. We can thank the ACLU for that.


How do I know? I've known enough of them to know. Talk to people who actually work in a place that tries to help these people. You'll see. It isn't greedy corporations throwing people to the streets. It isn't even people not being educated enough. It drugs and alcohol. Its the ease with which a person has the exercisable right to be a druggie or drunk and there isn't a thing we can do about it. How is it that someone who doesn't speak English and is not even legally able to apply for a job can avoid being homeless? If they can maintain somewhat of a standard of living there is no excuse.

Davdah

There are 744,000 homeless in this country and the number is growing. They are not all drug addicts and alchies. You are stereotyping. They do not all want to be like that. This is both a democrat and republican thinking. this is why it has gotten out of control because the only fix that can be offered is more soup kitchens and shelters. It is wrong approach.

I dont even think Obama camp gets it.

Home foreclosures are the new honeless. they are not drunks and drug addicts. they live in their cars and there is not any help for these people to get back on their feet. The government has not made a program 4that.

quote:

Originally posted by 4now:

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
4now, most of the homeless are there by choice. Nearly all have substance abuse problems. We have free programs for them. They choose not to use them. They would rather stay on the street supporting their habit instead of making their lives better.

If the gov were to round them all up and mandate a drug program that they could not walk out of that would do a lot to fix things. If you're on the street there is no compensatory attendance. We can thank the ACLU for that.


How do I know? I've known enough of them to know. Talk to people who actually work in a place that tries to help these people. You'll see. It isn't greedy corporations throwing people to the streets. It isn't even people not being educated enough. It drugs and alcohol. Its the ease with which a person has the exercisable right to be a druggie or drunk and there isn't a thing we can do about it. How is it that someone who doesn't speak English and is not even legally able to apply for a job can avoid being homeless? If they can maintain somewhat of a standard of living there is no excuse.

Davdah

There are 744,000 homeless in this country and the number is growing. They are not all drug addicts and alchies. You are stereotyping. They do not all want to be like that. This is both a democrat and republican thinking. this is why it has gotten out of control because the only fix that can be offered is more soup kitchens and shelters. It is wrong approach.

I dont even think Obama camp gets it.

Home foreclosures are the new honeless. they are not drunks and drug addicts. they live in their cars and there is not any help for these people to get back on their feet. The government has not made a program 4that.

Every foreclosure is due to going beyond buying power. If you know you are only capable of $200K home yet you shoot to get over inflated home with a value of over $500K, what do you expect is going to happen? Government can only help to a certain level. And why should Government even help or rescue these idiots. When they were buying home they should have better known. Tomorrow marriage starts falling apart and you will complain Government needs to jump in and provide free counseling. It was your choice to select a spouse, similarly it was your choice to get that sub-prime load for over inflated house.

At what point are we going to stop and start owning to our own actions rather than blaming Government?

A Brief Guide to the Flat Tax

There is widespread consensus that the current tax system is a complicated failure that hinders the nation’s growth while allowing the politically well-connected to manipulate the system to get special breaks that are not available to average workers and businesses. This is stimulating a great deal of interest in shifting to a sim­ple and fair flat tax. For instance, President George W. Bush has appointed the President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform to recommend options for fundamental tax reform,[1] the Department of the Treasury has produced extensive analysis of the flat tax and other reform options,[2] and lawmakers on Capitol Hill are exploring various ways to reform the tax code.

The United States should move quickly to reform its tax system. In a competitive global economy, jobs and capital flow to jurisdictions with better tax law. Tradi­tionally, this process of “tax competition” has benefited the United States, but there is growing evidence that America is falling behind. Nations around the world are lowering tax rates and reforming their tax systems. Indeed, nine countries that were part of the former Soviet Bloc have adopted versions of the flat tax.[3] These pro-growth reforms are yielding impressive results and are a road map for U.S. policymakers.

What Is a Flat Tax?

Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system,[4] a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the “equal justice under law” principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation’s wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.

There have been several flat tax proposals over the years, all of them based on the pathbreaking proposal developed by two Hoover Institution economists.[5] While no two plans are identical, they all share common features that fix the major flaws of the current Internal Revenue Code. Simplicity and fairness are also natural consequences of these component features of tax reform.

These major features of a flat tax are:

A Single Flat Rate.
All flat tax proposals have a single rate, usually less than 20 percent. The low, flat rate solves the problem of high marginal tax rates by reducing penalties against productive behavior, such as work, risk taking, and entrepreneurship.

Elimination of Special Preferences

Flat tax proposals would eliminate provisions of the tax code that bestow preferential tax treatment on certain behaviors and activities. Getting rid of deductions, credits, exemptions, and other loopholes also helps solve the problem of complexity, allowing taxpayers to file their tax returns on a postcard-sized form.

No Double Taxation of Saving and Invest­ment.

Flat tax proposals would eliminate the tax code’s bias against capital formation by ending the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. This means no death tax, no capital gains tax, no double taxation of saving, and no double tax on dividends. By taxing income only one time, a flat tax is easier to enforce and more conducive to job creation and capital formation.


Territorial Taxation.

Flat tax proposals are based on the commonsense notion of “territorial taxation,” meaning that governments should tax only income that is earned inside national borders. By getting rid of “worldwide taxation,” a flat tax enables U.S. taxpayers and companies to compete on a level playing field around the world.

Family-Friendly.

All flat tax proposals have one “loophole.” Households receive a generous exemp­tion based on family size. For instance, a family of four would not begin to pay tax until its annual income reached more than $30,000.[6]


Consumption-Based.

A tax code that does not discriminate against saving and investment is con­sidered a consumption-based tax system, regard­less of whether taxes are deducted from the paycheck or collected at the cash register. In this respect, a flat tax is a type of consumption tax. The difference between a flat tax and a national sales tax is where the tax is collected. A flat tax is levied on income—but only once and at one low rate—as it is earned. A sales tax is levied on income—but only once and at one low rate—as it is spent.

Both the flat tax and the sales tax differ dramati­cally from the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The current tax code has numerous forms of double taxation, such as its treatment of saving and corpo­rate income. The current tax code also has several forms of wealth taxation or asset taxation, such as the capital gains tax and the death tax. (These also are forms of double taxation since the assets were acquired with after-tax dollars.) The current tax code even has provisions that force taxpayers to overstate their income, such as forcing businesses to “depreciate” the cost of new investment instead of allowing immediate and full deduction (a policy known as “expensing”) when costs are incurred.

None of these forms of double taxation, wealth taxation, or overtaxation exist in either a flat tax or a national sales tax, which is why public finance economists categorize both systems as consump­tion-based taxes.


How a Flat Tax Would Work for Individual Taxpayers

Compared to the current system, a flat tax is extremely simple. Households pay tax on their labor income using a 10-line individual postcard. (See Form 1 in Figure 1.) They do not need to worry about reporting dividends, interest, and other forms of business/capital income. Those forms of income are taxed at the business level, thus obviating any need to tax them at the individual level since that would violate the principle of no double taxation.

The individual postcard is so simple that a third-grader could file a family’s tax return in about five minutes. Each household would report wage, salary, and pension income on Line 1, which should be eas­ily available from W-2 forms. Using Lines 2–5, the household then would calculate its personal allow­ance, which is based on family size. The personal allowance on Line 5 is then subtracted from Line 1 to determine taxable income. This amount is reported on Line 6. The amount of tax is calculated on Line 7. This amount is then compared to the amount of tax withheld on Line 8, which then leaves either a tax payment (Line 9) or a refund (Line 10).

How a Flat Tax Would Work for Businesses

Like the individual postcard form, the business postcard form is very simple. (See Form 2 in Figure 1.) All businesses, from Microsoft to a hot dog stand, would play by the same rules. There no longer would be separate tax rules for partnerships, sole proprietorships, S corporations and regular corporations. All business operations in America, whether owned by a U.S. company or owned by a foreign company, would pay tax on the income that they earn in the United States.



All business taxpayers would put their total receipts on Line 1. They would then add together their labor costs, their input costs, and their invest­ment costs on Lines 2 and 3. These costs are sub­tracted from gross receipts to determine taxable income on Line 4. Line 5 is the amount of tax that is due. Lines 6–10 exist in case a company either had losses from previous years and now has an opportunity to offset taxable income or has losses this year and needs to “carry them forward” to the next tax year.


The Advantages of a Flat Tax

There are two principal arguments for a flat tax—growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because the current tax system, with its high rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment, reduces growth, destroys jobs, and lowers incomes. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the tax code’s bias against saving and investment, it would boost the economy’s performance when compared with the present tax code.

However, the most persuasive feature of a flat tax for many Americans is its fairness. The complicated documents, instruction manuals, and numerous forms that taxpayers struggle to decipher every April would be replaced by a brief set of instruc­tions and two simple postcards. This radical reform appeals to citizens who not only resent the time and expense consumed by filing their own tax forms, but also suspect that the existing maze of credits, deductions, and exemptions gives a special advantage to those who wield political power and can afford expert tax advisers.

If enacted, a flat tax would yield major benefits to the nation, including:


Faster Economic Growth.
A flat tax would spur increased work, saving, and investment. By increasing incentives to engage in productive eco­nomic behavior, it would also boost the economy’s long-term growth rate. Even if a flat tax boosted long-term growth by only 0.5 percent, the income of the average family of four after 10 years would be as much as $5,000 higher than it would be under current tax laws.

Instant Wealth Creation

According to Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, tax reform would boost national wealth by nearly $5 trillion.[7] It would do this in part because all income-producing assets would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate.

Simplicity.

Complexity is a hidden tax amount­ing to more than $100 billion. This is the cost of tax preparation, lawyers, accountants, and other resources used to comply with the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Service even admits that the current tax code requires taxpayers to devote 6.6 billion hours each year to their tax returns.[8] Yet even this commitment of time is no guarantee of accuracy. The code is so complex that even tax experts and the IRS often make mistakes. All taxpayers, from General Motors to a hamburger-flipping teenager, would be able to fill out their tax return on a postcard-sized form, and compliance costs would drop by tens of billions of dollars.[9]

Fairness.

A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. No longer would the tax code penal­ize success and discriminate against citizens on the basis of income. Tax burdens would no longer depend on the number of lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants on the payroll.

An End to Micromanaging and Political Favor­itism.

A flat tax gets rid of all deductions, loop­holes, credits, and exemptions. Politicians would lose all ability to pick winners and losers, reward friends and punish enemies, and use the tax code to impose their values on the economy. Not only does this end a major source of political corruption, but it is also pro-growth since companies would no longer squander resources lobbying politicians or making foolish investments just to obtain favorable tax treatment.

Increased Civil Liberties.

Under current law, people charged with murder are presumed inno­cent and thus have more rights than taxpayers deal­ing with the Internal Revenue Service. By contrast, a flat tax would eliminate almost all sources of con­flict between taxpayers and the government. More­over, infringements on freedom and privacy would fall dramatically since the government would no longer need to know the intimate details of each taxpayer’s financial assets.[10]

Global Competitiveness.

In a remarkable development, former communist nations are lead­ing a global tax reform revolution. Estonia was the first to adopt a flat tax, implementing a 26 percent rate in 1994, just a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The other two Baltic republics of the former Soviet Union enacted flat taxes in the mid-1990s, with Latvia choosing a 25 percent rate and Lithuania picking 33 percent. Along with other free-market reforms, the flat tax significantly improved economic growth, and the “Baltic Tigers” became role models for the region. Learning from its neighbors, Russia stunned the world by adopting a 13 percent flat tax, which went into effect in 2001.

The Russian flat tax quickly yielded positive results: The economy prospered, and revenues poured into government coffers since tax evasion and avoidance became much less profitable. The flat tax then spread to Serbia, which in 2003 chose a 14 percent rate. Slovakia hopped on the bandwagon the following year with a 19 percent flat tax, as did Ukraine, which chose a 13 percent tax rate. Earlier this year, Romania joined the flat tax revolution with a 16 percent tax rate, and Georgia adopted a 12 per­cent flat tax rate, which has the honor, at least tem­porarily, of being the lowest rate in the world.

The flat tax revolution has been so successful that Estonia is lowering its rate to keep pace with other nations. The Estonian flat tax is now down to 24 percent and will drop to 20 percent by 2007, and Lithuania is in the process of lowering its 33 percent flat tax to a more reasonable 24 percent.[11] Poland’s government just announced that it will implement an 18 percent flat tax, and lawmakers in Croatia, Bulgaria, and Hungary are also considering tax reform. Last but not least, the opposition par­ties in the Czech Republic have promised to imple­ment 15 percent flat tax regimes if they win the upcoming elections.[12]

In a global economy, it is increasingly easy for jobs and capital to escape high-tax nations and migrate to low-tax nations. This means that the reward for good tax policy is greater than ever before, but it also means that the penalties for bad policy are greater than ever before. This is why so many nations are lowering tax rates and reforming their tax systems.[13] A flat tax will make America a magnet for investment and job creation


Source http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

quote:

Every foreclosure is due to going beyond buying power. If you know you are only capable of $200K home yet you shoot to get over inflated home with a value of over $500K, what do you expect is going to happen?
Government can only help to a certain level. And why should Government even help or rescue these idiots. When they were buying home they should have better known.

Tomorrow marriage starts falling apart and you will complain Government needs to jump in and provide free counseling. It was your choice to select a spouse, similarly it was your choice to get that sub-prime load for over inflated house.

At what point are we going to stop and start owning to our own actions rather than blaming Government?

This is why the board does not respond to you. You cannot seem to make intelligent responses, other than just your negative opinion not supported by facts. Now granted, you do have information to bring to the board, but you are going about it in the wrong way and with bad sources accompanied by racism and religious bashing. BTW.. did you see the movie Traitor.. enuff said on that. so in response before I put you back on ignore.

How can you make those statements. What about the people who owned their home for years. They lost their job , unemployment, new job was at service industry pay. (the new standard in america btw) Lost their health and became homeless. You also have to remember that many of these people are older people that lost steel mill jobs etc. They do not have parents to rely on to help them out. Their crdit went bad.. now they cannot get any apt or anything. If they lose their car (their new home) they are in deep trouble. These people need HELP. Soup kitchen and shelter will not get them back on their feet. just it will get them out of the rain.

You know, even though your analogy is way off base to compare the crisis, .. it is not a bad idea. free marriage counseling might not be a bad idea for some. Not a bad investment for the government to keep a family in tact.

4now, although his statements are a bit rough they are for the most part true.

Of the people in this so-called mortgage crisis the majority are the idiots spoken of. The few, very few, who did not over spend are being touted as the rule when in fact they are the exception. There has always been a certain number of defaults. No one complained until now due to the numbers involved.

Even then. The people knew they were going to default. They could have saved some money for a couple months to insure they had the required amount for a deposit and a couple months rent. Did they? No. They expected the gov to bail them out and keep the bank at arms length. If they are in their car its because they continued to be foolish. BTW, I have 4 vacancies in San Antonio. But, you need to come up with the deposit and first months rent. No free lunches.


Steel workers or whomever. It doesn't matter. They knew what was coming long ago. I saw it at 17 living in one of those steel towns. They knew their union was forcing the business to relocate over seas. They knew the gov was asking to much in the way of taxes etc from the employer. Is it any wonder everything is made in China?

Of course most jobs are service. That's the last area the EPA etc. hasn't regulated out of existence yet. Who is responsible for making sure people have decent jobs? Lets see... Yes, its the person's own.

Most people who are long term homeless are druggies. Lets not confuse the issue and add in people who slept in their car for a night or two. Those were added in to inflate that number. Still doesn't explain the disparity between our gigantic social services network and the homeless numbers we have versus other countries.

Part of it I believe is the attitude. In other countries it isn't too uncommon for generations to be sharing the same place. Here, most kids will not help their parents. Or vice versa. Its not that they can't. They expect daddy government to step in and pick up the tab. If people knew the gov would not help it would do a lot to provoke people into thinking for themselves instead of being selectively retarded.