Published: Wednesday, April 30 2014 12:30 a.m. MDT
Fred,the problem with upping the income against which FICA is taxed is you
also up the benefit they get on the back end. but FICA is a different story
than income tax, it goes into a separate trust fund, noit the general fund.GaryO,since you ADMIT it was a dem congress that reagan worked
with, why do you blanme him alone and NOT the dems? the debt could not have
increased without Tip O'neal and the dems going along. I recall a lone GOP
voice in the senate early in reagan's administration arguing against an
increase in the debt ceiling, but all the dems shouted him down. But since you
mentioned the increase in debt, it has increased more under BO than reagan ever
dreamed of, quite unnecsesarily with all his pork projects for his friends and
cronies and the oil boom that fell into his lap.all the luck that
fell into reagan's lap? you mean the stagflation and general malaise he
inherited from Carter, the worst president ever until BO? what luck are you
talking about?we have all the liberals touting BO because of, and
not inspite of, his total incompetence.
As long as we're adding economic treatises to recommend, let's not
omit Ludwig von Mises' Human Action and Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy
and the State. They both demolish Marxian fallacies and Keynesian fantasies, and
explain how economies actually function.
Redshirt1701,I appreciate your civil and carefully thought out
response. You make some interesting points, though I would modify a couple of
your statements a little, from my perspective.First, I would say
that there is no such thing as a "perfectly fair" or "absolutely
fair" tax, and would add that the objective is a "more fair" or
"optimally fair" tax system.Second, to your statement about
outgrowing the concept of fairness, I would counter that for most of us, our
understanding of the concept of fairness evolves and matures as we grow older,
that we begin to think of fairness in terms of justice, reasonableness, and
consequences (also abstract concepts, but with perhaps better defined and
agreed-upon criteria), and that this evolved concept of fairness becomes the
ideal, rather than the expectation.A flat tax is undeniably more
equal, but arguably NOT more fair.
Yeah, right, it's the tax code. What most people forget is that the only
thing that can be accomplished with the tax code is to make everybody equally
poor. I'm not sure that's a desirable outcome, but I guess it does
eliminate the inequality.The most often overlooked source of income
inequality is that the economy is in decline due to rising energy prices. When
energy prices go up, the economy cannot support as many white collar workers. So
we have a lot of unemployed white collar workers who will never find a job
unless they go back to the farm or we fix energy prices. The really sad thing is
that there are a lot of people who think high energy prices are a good thing and
are doing everything in their power to artificially raise them.I
second von Mises and Rothbard. The former's "Socialism" is also
something our friendly neighborhood socialists ought to study carefully.Capitalism - which is another name for freedom - works only when people
are moral. A nation of liars, cheaters, and thieves make freedom unworkable.
As long as some Americans are duped into thinking welfare is freedom, there will
always be inequality. Teach them how to work. Dont just give them a monthly
I*'m good with a flat tax...There were several years in a row
before I moved back to Utah that I actually max'd out my FICA and Social
Security...didn't have to pay a dime after that, and it was the time I
could MOST afford it.A flat tax means those making over $100K would
continue to pay a flat % rate on those as well....Could you imagine
the Millionaires and Billionaires having to pay an addition 20% on EVERYTHING
over and above their $100K ???[Ya, THAT'S why the uber-rich and
wealthy rich do not want a flat tax...]
You're asking for a solution to income inequality? ANY solution would be
chimerical, because the financial elites and their central bank cronies have
totally rigged the economic system in the way SEY has described in a comment
this morning.Consider: Andrew Huszar, the Federal Reserve official
responsible for implementing $1.25 trillion of quantitative easing, apologizes
to the American public for being a part of the fleecing known as QE: "I can
only say: I’m sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was
responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s first
plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing.The
central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But
I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest
backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time....The final results confirmed that,
while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central
bank’s bond purchases had been an absolute coupfor Wall
Street."When a Federal Reserve insider admits that the game has
been rigged, how can there be any viable solutions to income inequality?
Inequality is because people are different.Some strive for
excellence, and some could care less.Look into a classroom. Some
strive for good grades. The honor roll.Some are happy for the
lowest passing grade.Don't punish the achievers.
I thought Obama was going to have all this fixed by now.
"Also, dont forget, Many of the working poor also pay payroll taxes of 15%.
Mitt did not pay that.Nor did Mr Buffet. They made their money off of
investments."Unlike others on this forum, I don't pretend
to know the intimate details of Mr. Romney's tax returns. Even though he
made the bulk of his money in investments, I am willing to bet that he had at
least $100K in ordinary income that was subject to the FICA tax that all us
working stiffs pay too.Rich people pay a lot of taxes, but they also
get a number of tax deductions that ordinary people can't take advantage
of. A simple flat tax on all income (wages, investments, interest, etc.) above a
certain level ($25K?) would be the most fair. Sure you could find some poor
people who would end up paying more taxes and a few rich people who might be
paying less under such a system, but overall everyone would be paying a more
Despite the political non-sense, we have a highly progressive tax system (all
the data proves this) with people with higher incomes paying the vast majority
of tax revenues government receives. What is unfair is that nearly 50%
don't pay a dime in taxes. We should not have so many living off of others.
The tax base should be broadened. The lower 50% should be paying something.
Maybe not much, but they should be contributing something.
To "SG in SLC" you still cannot ever have a system that is "more
fair" or "optimally fair". You are still basing the tax system on
the opinion of a person or group of people. At best you can have a system that
most people think is fair. Again, by using "fairness" as the measure,
that is not quantifiable. How do you quantify happiness? You are trying to
quantify an emotion.To "LDS Liberal" you are confusing. You
say that you are for a flat tax, then you express you desire for a progressive
tax. You do know that a flat tax means that everybody is taxed at the same
rate, regardless of income. That means that the poor would also be taxed at the
same rate as the billionaire.
There should not be any federal income tax at all.Government can
function on a flat tax on imports, and exports.Just that simple.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments