Reader comments
Coalition seeks to dump flat-tax system
64 comments | Read story
CougarKeith | 11:58 a.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Of course when you do something right where there aren't 50,000 hoops you
can jump through to avoid paying taxes, and fudging numbers in a liberal minded
view, IT'S ALWAYS THE WRONG THING TO DO! 5% is a great thing, just imagine
if the Feds went to a 5% flat tax too! That is just 10% total!!! That would be
so easy, 5% State, 5% Federal, 10% God, 10% your own savings, and 70% bills and
personal spending! How simple would that be!!! Governor Huntsman I am on your
side all the way!!!
Dishonest people can never accept the simplicity of this system. It's too easy to do it right, do it honestly, and do it fairly. I mean 5% to a man who makes $100 a month is $5.00, 5% to a man who makes $1,000 a month is $50.00, and to a man who makes $10,000 a month is $500.00. It is fair and everyone pays the SAME according to the amount they make. What is the problem? You will always have whiners I guess???
Dishonest people can never accept the simplicity of this system. It's too easy to do it right, do it honestly, and do it fairly. I mean 5% to a man who makes $100 a month is $5.00, 5% to a man who makes $1,000 a month is $50.00, and to a man who makes $10,000 a month is $500.00. It is fair and everyone pays the SAME according to the amount they make. What is the problem? You will always have whiners I guess???
S&W.40 | 11:59 a.m. Sept. 18, 2008
The government provides services to all citizens, all citizens should pay taxes.
Initiating a flat tax is the fairest form of taxation. It does not give
discounts to the wealthy, as they pay the same as the poorest tax paying
individual. 5% is 5% Progressive Tax brackets are not fair, and is not
progressive, it is wealth redistribution. Anything other than a flat tax rate is
the governments attempt of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
Comments continue below
I'm with Gus. | 12:18 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
I agree.
JMT | 12:21 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
A small trivia question for us.
Question: Who was the first modern economist/philosopher to strongly advocate for a progressive tax system?
Answer: Karl Marx.
A progressive tax system is one in which the more a person makes the larger percentage they pay in taxes. The reason Karl Marx advocated this is his mantra of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
The idea is that ultimately all people would have about the same amount of money to live on. He hated wealth and wealthy people. So if a person made $30k a year, they paid nothing in taxes. If they made $100k a year their tax rate would take enough taxes to leave them roughly $30k to live on.
These initiative supporters are making incremental arguments. We should keep in mind that before Reagan got to it the highest tax rates were well in excess of 70%! If I remember correctly even higher than that!
We do a flat tax for all purchases, it is good enough for income. If people make more, they pay more. Make nothing, they pay nothing.
Huntsman is right!
Question: Who was the first modern economist/philosopher to strongly advocate for a progressive tax system?
Answer: Karl Marx.
A progressive tax system is one in which the more a person makes the larger percentage they pay in taxes. The reason Karl Marx advocated this is his mantra of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
The idea is that ultimately all people would have about the same amount of money to live on. He hated wealth and wealthy people. So if a person made $30k a year, they paid nothing in taxes. If they made $100k a year their tax rate would take enough taxes to leave them roughly $30k to live on.
These initiative supporters are making incremental arguments. We should keep in mind that before Reagan got to it the highest tax rates were well in excess of 70%! If I remember correctly even higher than that!
We do a flat tax for all purchases, it is good enough for income. If people make more, they pay more. Make nothing, they pay nothing.
Huntsman is right!
Lane Meyer | 12:52 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Those who support and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ are called
Christians. Those who suppot and believe in the ideas of Karl Marx are called
Marxists. Where does Marxism actually work?? Please show me. Please please I
would love to see where in the history of the world and all time, where it has
worked?
Progressive v. Flat | 1:02 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
The progressive tax system taxes based on ability to pay. The poor and middle
class are less able to pay than the wealthy, so they are taxed at progressively
lower rates.
The flat tax does not consider ability to pay, so the wealthy are taxed at the same rate as the poor and middle class. The result of changing from a progressive system to a flat system is that the wealthy got a huge tax break, and the middle class got no material tax break (if you're a middle class Utahn and dispute this, just check your state tax refund this past year and compare it to previous years when we had a progressive system).
While on the surface, the flat tax appears more fair, it isn't if you calculate taxes as a percentage of gross income. If you are poor or middle class, your taxes as percentage of gross income remained the same, and is a much higher percentage than the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income, which was already lower than poor and middle class percentage under the progressive system and is still lower under the flat system.
while the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income
The flat tax does not consider ability to pay, so the wealthy are taxed at the same rate as the poor and middle class. The result of changing from a progressive system to a flat system is that the wealthy got a huge tax break, and the middle class got no material tax break (if you're a middle class Utahn and dispute this, just check your state tax refund this past year and compare it to previous years when we had a progressive system).
While on the surface, the flat tax appears more fair, it isn't if you calculate taxes as a percentage of gross income. If you are poor or middle class, your taxes as percentage of gross income remained the same, and is a much higher percentage than the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income, which was already lower than poor and middle class percentage under the progressive system and is still lower under the flat system.
while the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income
rvalens2 | 1:04 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
What Progressives (aka liberals) like to point out is that the rich guy can
afford to have more of his income taken away in taxes.
$50.00 is a lot of money to someone making only $1000 per month. However, to a someone making $10,000 per month it's peanuts.
As long as the percentage is the same I don't see a problem. I want my government to treat us all equally when it comes to taxes. Maybe that way it will encourage us all to get out and work our behinds off to get ahead.
After all, if a liberal / socialist government is going take more and more of my hard earned money. Why should I work so hard? I'll just rest on my back side and let the government supply me with what I need.
$50.00 is a lot of money to someone making only $1000 per month. However, to a someone making $10,000 per month it's peanuts.
As long as the percentage is the same I don't see a problem. I want my government to treat us all equally when it comes to taxes. Maybe that way it will encourage us all to get out and work our behinds off to get ahead.
After all, if a liberal / socialist government is going take more and more of my hard earned money. Why should I work so hard? I'll just rest on my back side and let the government supply me with what I need.
Not so fast flat taxers | 1:28 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
How is progressive tax any different than an employer (CEOs, oil execs, business
owners, etc.) paying his employee wages? An employer never shares his profits
evenly; he keeps the lions share for himself. After all the point of getting
rich is to avoid drudgery and enjoy the benefits of other laborers. How then is
a progressive tax not just? Isn�t it fair the wealthy pay
proportionately more (in taxes) when they keep proportionately more?
Isn�t this just?
Progressive or flat tax has nothing to do with budget cuts or over-runs only with who pays what portion; both taxes can be raised or lowered accordingly.
Progressive or flat tax has nothing to do with budget cuts or over-runs only with who pays what portion; both taxes can be raised or lowered accordingly.
re: Progressive | 1:29 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
"If you are poor or middle class, your taxes as percentage of gross income
remained the same, and is a much higher percentage than the wealthy's taxes
as percentage of gross income, which was already lower than poor and middle
class percentage under the progressive system and is still lower under the flat
system.
while the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income "
Is this new math of some kind??? - where I live if everyone is taxed 5% on their income; everyone pays the same percentage.
while the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income "
Is this new math of some kind??? - where I live if everyone is taxed 5% on their income; everyone pays the same percentage.
a flat tax is | 1:42 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
a no-brainer! There are always folks armed with statistics to
"validate" their particular points of view, but doesn't it just
make sense to tax us all at the same rate? I've been broke most of my life,
have never been able to afford much, but sure didn't feel the need to apply
to the government for some of the money they took from rich folks. Now that oil
prices are up and I'm making a lot of money, I can't see why I should
be expected to pay an ever-increasing percentage of it to an inefficient
government. I realize this isn't an educated opinion - there are enough
college graduates out there who will regale us with those. This is just one old
guy thinking "Hunstman got it right."
Re: re: Progressive | 1:49 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
"Is this new math of some kind???"
It's called gorilla math, the libs love to use it to confuse their constinuents into voting for things they don't understand as Progressive just pointed out. God Bless America!!!
It's called gorilla math, the libs love to use it to confuse their constinuents into voting for things they don't understand as Progressive just pointed out. God Bless America!!!
to "not so fast..." | 1:53 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
you typed "Isn�t it fair the wealthy pay
proportionately more (in taxes) when they keep proportionately more?
Isn�t this just?"
Yes, if this was a big piece of cake, and my "keeping proportionately more" meant there was less for you - that would be unfair. But our economy doesn't work like that. One person well off is not offest by several others going without in order to balance things out. Your point has no validity.
Yes, if this was a big piece of cake, and my "keeping proportionately more" meant there was less for you - that would be unfair. But our economy doesn't work like that. One person well off is not offest by several others going without in order to balance things out. Your point has no validity.
JMT | 1:59 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
I totally love this class warfare crud on this subject. We could not have made
it more perfect to have a openly Marxist proposal on the ballot than this.
The person who worries about the poor paying more of their income with a flat tax doesn't understand it. These poor people still get their tax write-offs. This means that in general they pay no taxes at all on the first $20-30k they make.
Say they make $40k they would get to write-off mortgage, children, etc. In Utah they also index this against the Federal taxes they pay. So most of what they make is tax exempt. Someone making $40k might pay taxes on $10k or less. This means their total state income tax would be roughly $500.
A person making $1million would get the same $20-30k in tax write-offs, likely more since few salaries pay that much. They are likely a sole-proprietor. Ultimately they will pay 5% on hundres of thousands of dollars of earned income.
Middle class pays $500. Millionaires will pay tens of thousands of dollars.
I'm fine with that. Only Karl Marx and the Democratic party think its unfair.
Obama is bringing out the communist rhetoric. ug!
The person who worries about the poor paying more of their income with a flat tax doesn't understand it. These poor people still get their tax write-offs. This means that in general they pay no taxes at all on the first $20-30k they make.
Say they make $40k they would get to write-off mortgage, children, etc. In Utah they also index this against the Federal taxes they pay. So most of what they make is tax exempt. Someone making $40k might pay taxes on $10k or less. This means their total state income tax would be roughly $500.
A person making $1million would get the same $20-30k in tax write-offs, likely more since few salaries pay that much. They are likely a sole-proprietor. Ultimately they will pay 5% on hundres of thousands of dollars of earned income.
Middle class pays $500. Millionaires will pay tens of thousands of dollars.
I'm fine with that. Only Karl Marx and the Democratic party think its unfair.
Obama is bringing out the communist rhetoric. ug!
Karl Marx | 2:06 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
That Karl Marx idea sounds swell. What a great way to encourage people to
succeed and build businesses. I would love to work all my life to build a
successful business and have the government take most my money and give it to
those that don't even try. Great idea!!
Flat tax is the only fair way.
Flat tax is the only fair way.
Obama | 2:09 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
This Karl Marx guy kind of reminds me of Obama. Of course most democrats will
take this as a compliment.
lost in DC | 2:20 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
If the parallel calculation used on the 2007 state tax return was actually a
comparison of the old progressive tax system and the new flat tax system, Mr.
Frandsen's assertion that the flat tax will hurt the middle class is
spot-on. I am a middle income person and my calculations for 2007 showed I
would have paid $1,741 more under the flat tax than the progressive tax. For
me, it's a no-brainer - take Huntsman's flat tax and put it in the
trash.
@JMT | 2:41 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
A pure flat tax means the flat rate is based on adjusted gross income. Thus,
there is no deduction for mortgage, charitable deductions, etc. You pay on your
gross income.
I actually agree with that. There is no reason government should subsidize life choices through tax breaks.
I also think the first so much of income (perhaps 40k) should be exempt from the flat tax as this is a basic living wage. Thus, someone making 50k pays tax on 10k ($500). And, someone making 1M pays tax on 960k ($48k).
I actually agree with that. There is no reason government should subsidize life choices through tax breaks.
I also think the first so much of income (perhaps 40k) should be exempt from the flat tax as this is a basic living wage. Thus, someone making 50k pays tax on 10k ($500). And, someone making 1M pays tax on 960k ($48k).
How about | 2:46 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
How about going to a federal flat tax of 10 percent across all income brackets
and a 10 percent corportate and dividend tax. The only exemption is a $5k per
person exeption (i.e. a family of 5 making $40k a year pays a 10 percenty take
on $15k, so $1.5k a year in federal taxes). And then to compensate for a fair
and equal tax, institude a federal sales tax of 10 percent on all non-food
items. That way, those who spend more on expensive toys, luxury items and homes,
pay more in taxes based off what they use and spend.
Seriously, think about it and give me an intelligent reply as to why it would or wouldn't work.
Seriously, think about it and give me an intelligent reply as to why it would or wouldn't work.
Incentives | 2:54 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
So why don't we tax rich people at 100%? After all, no one needs more than,
say, $250,000 a year. Why not set the tax rate at 100% on everything over that
amount?
Answer: Because no one would do any work once they earned the $250,000 limit. Doctors, Lawyers, CEOs, etc. would just close up shop in April or May and take the rest of the year off. (In fact, no one would bother going to medical school in the first place, knowing they could never make more than $250k.) The government would get nothing in taxes at the 100% rate.
No one would bother to invest or build up a business that hires lots of workers either. The economy would be a wreck...but we would not have any rich people to envy though, so it might be heaven.
Answer: Because no one would do any work once they earned the $250,000 limit. Doctors, Lawyers, CEOs, etc. would just close up shop in April or May and take the rest of the year off. (In fact, no one would bother going to medical school in the first place, knowing they could never make more than $250k.) The government would get nothing in taxes at the 100% rate.
No one would bother to invest or build up a business that hires lots of workers either. The economy would be a wreck...but we would not have any rich people to envy though, so it might be heaven.
Re: How about | 3:05 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Having a few low flat rate taxes (Federal Income, State Income, State Sales,
Federal Sales) would work as long as they didn't all add up to a big
percentage.
The problem is that government should be able to function well with about 20% of total economic activity, but they can't control spending. To get votes and grant favors, politicians love to promise everything under the sun with our tax money.
They also love to control peoples' lives through the tax system. They couldn't do that with a flat tax.
The problem is that government should be able to function well with about 20% of total economic activity, but they can't control spending. To get votes and grant favors, politicians love to promise everything under the sun with our tax money.
They also love to control peoples' lives through the tax system. They couldn't do that with a flat tax.
Don | 3:16 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Actually, a FAIR tax would be to get value back for your payment. The flat tax
is an improvement, but the rich are still getting ripped off. Stop coveting what
is not yours, slackers.
S&W.40 | 3:23 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Business owners pay quite a lot more than their fair share of taxes. Taxes that
non owners never see, such as personal property taxes, the other half of social
security and medicare payments. For a company of only 50 employees that equals
over $180,000. depending on assets. Enough money to pay the wages of 3 more
employees. That doesn't include real property taxes, which business owners
tend to have more of, and higher incomes that these business owners also recieve
that is also taxed. Where I work that just those taxes alone would be enough to
support 10 more workers at $60,000 annualy.
The point is, we are a market economy, government should be here to support that market by ensuring fairness, providing legal support, and ensuring the essential public infrastructure is built. Anything else is government interferance.
The more simple the tax system is, the less subject the system is to fraud, and to negligent spending by the government.
The point is, we are a market economy, government should be here to support that market by ensuring fairness, providing legal support, and ensuring the essential public infrastructure is built. Anything else is government interferance.
The more simple the tax system is, the less subject the system is to fraud, and to negligent spending by the government.
Flash!!! | 3:40 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
For those who want the government to give them more stuff that is taken from the
so called rich you should remember that for every dollar the government takes it
keeps a very large percentage for operating costs (the feds being the largest
share) which means that any taxes will be abused by the government. This all
means that it would be best to restrict the government to the absolute minimum
and those citizens who need extra should just go to their rich neighbors and ask
for it to avoid the high percentage of government rip-off as a do-gooder middle
man.
JMT | 3:53 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
To the comment from 2:41, you are definately correct. I would completely agree
with you.
What I was describing is what we have in Utah.
You are describing the ideal, which I support.
Last year my brother in law made $54k, with write-offs, three kids, etc he paid $4500 in Fed taxes and almost $600 in State taxes. I helped him do his taxes.
Current is system is fair. I would like to have our current national income tax changed to what you describe.
What I was describing is what we have in Utah.
You are describing the ideal, which I support.
Last year my brother in law made $54k, with write-offs, three kids, etc he paid $4500 in Fed taxes and almost $600 in State taxes. I helped him do his taxes.
Current is system is fair. I would like to have our current national income tax changed to what you describe.
CPA | 4:06 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
So. I agree with most of what people are saying. A flat tax seems reasonable.
Well. I pulled out my returns from the past 3 years, and every year the
alternative tax was cheaper than the flat tax! Go figure. And my income was
not extravagent, around 50K. So why would the progressive tax be more? I have
no idea. But that's the way the software spit it out. I challenge you,
before you post here, pull up your old returns first. You may be surprised.
Don't kid yourself | 4:17 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Utah's income tax rate is in practical terms a flat tax and not
progressive. The highest rate kicks in at $11,000 for married filing jointly
with a rate at 6.98%.
The big difference is "this flat tax" rate proposal nixes a lot of deductions, namely mortgage interest and contributions.
For the average Utahn this is a tax INCREASE.
The big difference is "this flat tax" rate proposal nixes a lot of deductions, namely mortgage interest and contributions.
For the average Utahn this is a tax INCREASE.
Richie_J21 | 4:35 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
I agree with the plan to do away with income tax all together, on both the state
and federal level. Institute a federal 10% sales tax, and a state 5% sales tax.
Instead of getting income tax breaks, low income families would get breaks on
their sales tax rate.
That way, instead of looking at the wealthy vs. the poor, you're looking at big spenders vs. low spenders. It gives incentive towards people who save their money, instead of penalizing people for working their tails off to earn a lot of money.
If you're a wealthy person, and you're buying boats, cars, houses, jewels, plasma tv's, etc., you're going to pay more than the guy who buys just the necessities.
It might even keep people from racking up credit card debt they can't afford.
That way, instead of looking at the wealthy vs. the poor, you're looking at big spenders vs. low spenders. It gives incentive towards people who save their money, instead of penalizing people for working their tails off to earn a lot of money.
If you're a wealthy person, and you're buying boats, cars, houses, jewels, plasma tv's, etc., you're going to pay more than the guy who buys just the necessities.
It might even keep people from racking up credit card debt they can't afford.
Madden | 4:40 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
@JMT makes the critical point here...ideally a flat tax is OK, but it
shouldn't necessarily kick in with the first $1 of income. Rather we can
set a threshold for basic cost of food and shelter, and all income beyond that
is flat-taxed.
We can argue all day long on tax breaks for kids and mortgages though. There are compelling reasons to offer breaks for certain activities and situations, but drawing those lines are difficult.
We can argue all day long on tax breaks for kids and mortgages though. There are compelling reasons to offer breaks for certain activities and situations, but drawing those lines are difficult.
BYU fan | 4:43 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
According to CNN last night, only 40% of americans pay income taxes. So I say,
bring on the flat tax and let everyone contribute to schools, parks, roads, etc.
Concerned Utahn | 4:50 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Wow I'm amazed to see how greedy some of you Utahns are! If you really
think $5 to someone that makes $100 means the same as $500 does to someone that
makes $10,000 you are a nieve Idiot that has never been on the $100 side of
life. And for Lane Meyer that asked when taking from the poor and giving to the
rich has ever worked; I can't think when it has worked, but many have
tried. Like in the New testiment when the followers of Christ put all of their
belongings at the feet of the Apostles and "all things were in
common." Also in the early days of the lds church when members tried to
live the Law of Consecration but couldn't because of greed. Those that
have more should be willing to pay more to a society that has helped them get
where they are. I'm not saying they should pay 100% of their income, like
those mentioned above tried in the past. However, a little higher percentage
than those less fortunate would be nice.
Taxes=Evil | 5:04 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
The real problem is that a so-called "progressive" tax is the most
regressive, divisive, and harmful scheme ever dreamed up by the mind of man.
"Progressive" taxes not only pit rich against poor, in a game to see who can cheat the other out of the most, they also kill the economy and deny the government needed revenues.
As has been shown over and over and over again, if you want the government to take in more revenues, CUT taxes. If you want to kill the economy and make everyone poor, including the government, raise taxes.
Works every time.
"Progressive" taxes not only pit rich against poor, in a game to see who can cheat the other out of the most, they also kill the economy and deny the government needed revenues.
As has been shown over and over and over again, if you want the government to take in more revenues, CUT taxes. If you want to kill the economy and make everyone poor, including the government, raise taxes.
Works every time.
Anonymous | 5:14 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Wasn't MacDonald one of the guys from the Tax Commission who was providing
the Governor with bad data when he was pushing the flat tax through the
legislature? I guess MacDonald couldn't kill it by bureaucratic subterfuge,
so now he's back to try to screw the Governor again.
Salt Laker | 5:21 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
How about taking it one step further. Have everyone pay the same amount. If
we're all consuming the same amount of service, why not make everyone pay
the same number of dollars? The movie theater doesn't ask how much money
you make when they sell you a seat, why should the government ask you how much
you make for providing their services?
TF | 5:34 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
1% of America pays 40% of all taxes.
DR | 5:40 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
I am fortunate enough to have a job that pays me very well. I choose to live in
Utah and the USA and therefore agree to abide by the laws of the land, including
paying my taxes. I am a business owner and have an average of 50 employees,
most of whom work very hard, which I greatly appreciate. My problem with the
progressive tax plan is the government is forcing me to give them the money so
they can then turn around and give a little of it back to my employees. I would
rather give the employees raises and bigger bonuses than give the money to the
government to squander with their gross inefficiency. The flat tax allows me to
surrender less to the government and return more of the money to the employees
or reinvest in business growth (which creates more jobs and higher wages for all
employees).
Flat Tax Imposters | 5:48 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
There are some who wrap the America flag around the flat tax system and brand
all who oppose un-American. They equate progressive taxes to Marxist or
socialism. These extremes install fear in the unsuspecting middle and lower
classes. Progressive tax is not wealth redistribution; the wealthy are thriving
just fine and the not so wealthy are still struggling under the current
progressive tax system. Progressive tax - not flat tax � is
based on fairness.
Consider:
Employers never spit profits evenly with employees; they keep the lions share for themselves at the wage earners expense. This is business as usual - capitalism. No argument. Yet, when the same methodology is applied in the form of progressive tax its called socialism. Why? Shouldn�t a two sword swing both ways - to be fair? To swing one way only benefits the wealthy. Besides, it seems to me the progressive tax resembles American capitalism more than the flat tax.
Progressive or flat tax has nothing to do with flag waving or simplicity; only with which is really fair; flat taxes mean well but both taxes can still impose a complicated system of deductions, types of incomes to tax, etc.
Consider:
Employers never spit profits evenly with employees; they keep the lions share for themselves at the wage earners expense. This is business as usual - capitalism. No argument. Yet, when the same methodology is applied in the form of progressive tax its called socialism. Why? Shouldn�t a two sword swing both ways - to be fair? To swing one way only benefits the wealthy. Besides, it seems to me the progressive tax resembles American capitalism more than the flat tax.
Progressive or flat tax has nothing to do with flag waving or simplicity; only with which is really fair; flat taxes mean well but both taxes can still impose a complicated system of deductions, types of incomes to tax, etc.
re: concerned Utahn | 5:50 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
The law of consecration doesn't work yet because of greed AND idleness.
Look at the communist countries today. Those institutions have systematically
taught people to only do the 'minimum required by the state'.
Principles like initiative, hard work, delayed gratification, thrift, etc. have
been completely lost. The rich pay more in taxes under the flat tax system,
they just don't pay 50%+ under the graduated tax system. I just wish the
Feds would understand the principles of the flat tax as well.
arc | 5:55 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
I hate the "flat" tax. The previous one was better. Someone working
part time got a break, and most everyone else got the same rate.
k | 6:17 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Right now the first X doesn't get taxed, then at each range of income there
is a % the federal government takes. 15% at one level, if you make anything over
that level the amount above gets taxed at 25%, and so on. Each level's take
is added up and that's your responsibility to pay. So the more you make the
more you are taxed. So I don't get this line that the rich should pay more
when they actually are, it's set up that way currently. Why are
politician's lying and suggesting they aren't? To get elected. The
wealthy aren't benefiting. They are paying more at each tier of income they
achieve.
A sales tax would just reduce consumption.
A sales tax would just reduce consumption.
Consider Sweden | 6:31 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Sweden's socialistic system provides benefits so great, you barely have to
work for a living. The problem is, to pay for it, they have a progressive tax
curve so steep that a garbage collector ends up netting about the same as a
doctor. So who wants to work their tail off to get through med school to earn
the same as the average worker? The result is most of the doctors there now are
from India Bangladesh, etc.
The rich should see how the poor live, true enough
But the poor should see how the rich work.
The rich should see how the poor live, true enough
But the poor should see how the rich work.
Anonymous | 6:50 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Attorneys and tax preparers will probably be opposed to the flat tax simply
because it will take work away from them. The more complex the tax code, the
more job security. The Kiss principle applies here.
Deep in Thought | 7:13 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Most of the posts here are only about trying to pay less. It should be what is
the fair price for what I am receiving, as well as, what will help society raise
the std. of living. No one likes taxes! But of the two systems proposed which
one is simpler, easier to understand, best to administer, most reliable for
budjet projections, and least likely to be misinterpreted and abused. I'll
submit that it is the flat tax. It justs reminds people to much of the good ole
days of Monarchy.
What is fair? | 8:03 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Because of an extensive background of 7 years in college (at my own expense-not
paid for by anyone but me) I make over one hundred thousand a year.
I was out of the work force for 8 years (7 in college and 1 in an intership) living on 2 dollars an hour cleaning building. I worked my rear off for those years, and now reap the rewards. Why should I have to pay a progressive tax so others can goof off. It seems those seeking a progressive tax want to punish people like me that set goals and obtained them through hard work. My work is in the health sector, and my labor is much in demand, as their are to few of us. I am asked to work overtime almost weekly - to help people in medical need. Any more, I ask myself why. I lose 50% of my wages on overtime. You do the math - I make more on strait time than overtime after taxes. Yet I want to help people, and all they want in return is to tax me higher? Maybe I should just give up and drive truck.
Think about it.
I was out of the work force for 8 years (7 in college and 1 in an intership) living on 2 dollars an hour cleaning building. I worked my rear off for those years, and now reap the rewards. Why should I have to pay a progressive tax so others can goof off. It seems those seeking a progressive tax want to punish people like me that set goals and obtained them through hard work. My work is in the health sector, and my labor is much in demand, as their are to few of us. I am asked to work overtime almost weekly - to help people in medical need. Any more, I ask myself why. I lose 50% of my wages on overtime. You do the math - I make more on strait time than overtime after taxes. Yet I want to help people, and all they want in return is to tax me higher? Maybe I should just give up and drive truck.
Think about it.
Flat Tax | 8:30 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Taxes should be EQUAL for everyone.
The Constitution calls for everyone to be treated EQUAL.
$10 = $10.
Why should I pay more tax because I work harder than someone else? EQUAL is EQUAL.
The Constitution calls for everyone to be treated EQUAL.
$10 = $10.
Why should I pay more tax because I work harder than someone else? EQUAL is EQUAL.
Gretzky | 8:31 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
Flat Tax seems like a great idea. works for the LDS church at 10%. why not the
government at 5% for state and 5% for feds. We need to stop subsidizing the UN
as well. we need to cut the silly Head Start programs out there. we need to
encourage folks to work and get off the bench and do some skating and scoring of
goals.
JMT | 9:39 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
One clarification for some people. We currently have a flat tax in Utah.
The point of this article, and this group, is that they want to end that and go to a progressive tax scheme that would kick in for fiscal year 2010. That means that on April 15, 2011 you would pay the new Marxist tax plan.
I would like to do a different type of tax plan. I say that we allow certain write-offs, so that the first $30k is not taxed and after that it is taxed at a flat rate.
I say from $0 - $30k they pay 1% tax. That would mean a person making $29,999 would pay $299.99 in State Income Tax. Someone making $10k would pay $100.
Right now we have one half of the society paying no income taxes and demanding the other half pay more. Let those folks pay something and see if they want to increase taxes anytime soon.
Nothing like paying something of your own way.
The point of this article, and this group, is that they want to end that and go to a progressive tax scheme that would kick in for fiscal year 2010. That means that on April 15, 2011 you would pay the new Marxist tax plan.
I would like to do a different type of tax plan. I say that we allow certain write-offs, so that the first $30k is not taxed and after that it is taxed at a flat rate.
I say from $0 - $30k they pay 1% tax. That would mean a person making $29,999 would pay $299.99 in State Income Tax. Someone making $10k would pay $100.
Right now we have one half of the society paying no income taxes and demanding the other half pay more. Let those folks pay something and see if they want to increase taxes anytime soon.
Nothing like paying something of your own way.
John | 11:04 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
I think if Utah wants a flat tax it should demand that rich people also send
their kids to die in Republican wars in equal numbers to the poor in order to
protect your so-called "fair" society.
Let's just set aside the fact that progressive income taxes have been the foundation of every civilized society in modern history and flat-tax societies tend to become second-world backwaters with a couple of rich people and everyone else desperately poor.
Let's also just set aside the need for intelligent regulation of our nation's banking and financial system... oh we already did that. Worked well didn't it?
Let's just set aside the fact that progressive income taxes have been the foundation of every civilized society in modern history and flat-tax societies tend to become second-world backwaters with a couple of rich people and everyone else desperately poor.
Let's also just set aside the need for intelligent regulation of our nation's banking and financial system... oh we already did that. Worked well didn't it?
John | 11:09 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
And by the way: Sweden has a faster growing GDP and higher median income than
the US. The greatest argument these dimwitted Americans make against progressive
societies is that it will hurt the US economy. Interesting that Europe is
cleaning our economic clock.
Re: Flat Tax Imposters | 11:16 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008
"Employers never spit profits evenly with employees; they keep the lions
share for themselves at the wage earners expense."
Employers may not "split" profits evenly with employees, but they don't split expenses or risks either. Most rich entrepreneurs have taken enormous risks before they reap the rewards.
Why do some people think that if an employer makes a lot of money, he does it at the "expense of the worker"? Every employer has to pay every employee what they are worth. Otherwise the employee leaves for someone who will pay them what they are worth.
Employers may not "split" profits evenly with employees, but they don't split expenses or risks either. Most rich entrepreneurs have taken enormous risks before they reap the rewards.
Why do some people think that if an employer makes a lot of money, he does it at the "expense of the worker"? Every employer has to pay every employee what they are worth. Otherwise the employee leaves for someone who will pay them what they are worth.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- FLDS ask for new trust manager 10:36 p.m.
- Payson family loses home in fire 10:34 p.m.
- Teen's turbulent past outlined 10:33 p.m.
- Atty: I-80 'profiling' is illegal 10:32 p.m.
- Admiral expects rising casualties 10:27 p.m.
- U.S. prods Pakistan 10:27 p.m.
- Bombings kill 46 in Pakistan 10:26 p.m.
- Dubai World looking to unload assets 10:26 p.m.
- World datelines 10:25 p.m.
- Workshop for smokers Wednesday 10:20 p.m.
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
278 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing259
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl203
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry191
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Cougars going back to Vegas146
- Letters: Global warming a lie144
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil134
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Amazon.com, Target.com, Sears.com, Walmart.com, Kmart.com and...
Latest comments
Chuck it out the window! Start from scratch with a playoff system.
TCU looks as good as any team in the nation and are currently undefeated....
Great article!
Dare I say it? -- The BCS is unAmerican. The question of who deserves to be...
All Knowing (giggle) can you give any proof for that? Sam ham, I keep...
I'm a BYU fan, born and raised in Southern California, and until I got to the...
Utah legislators are pathetic...instead of cutting wasteful spending they...
GOOD GAME FELLA'S, THAT WAS GREAT TO SEE THAT 3RD QUARTER RUN........ KEEP...
If Fesenko was in for at least 10 minutes, the Jazz win this thing by seven...
I currently am working as an extern with Yehu Microfinance, and I just want...
Advertisements
I have to manage my budget this way. I can't demand a raise just to buy an iPhone, I have to cut something else out in order to afford it.
Why is this so hard for some groups to understand?