W approval rating continues to decline

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Exactly why is it anyones fault for being rich? Why should they have to hand over half of what they make to state and local government?

[dissention]

Seriously, your views on taxation are not based in reality and unfairly punish the so called rich.

I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Then you're pretty damned dense, hon.

No, there actually is logic behind it. I'm not the only one to have this realization about a flat tax!



Have fun. :)

THANKS...I hope I do! :)

[strandinthewind]

I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.

Are you opposed to the flat tax of 15% with no deductions for those making over $50,000 and no tax for those making less, which many speculate would fill the tax coffers? Or, is it necessary to punish the rich with more taxation just because they are rich?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.

And I am supposed to lose sleep over my belief in a flat tax?

[dissention]

No, there actually is logic behind it. I'm not the only one to have this realization about a flat tax!

There's no logic behind it. Instituting a sales tax that would end up costing citizens twenty-five cents on the dollar once state, local, and federal taxes are added up is just plain dumb and unrealistic.

[dissention]

And I am supposed to lose sleep over my belief in a flat tax?

Does the Nazi Youth Pope wear a funny hat?

[dissention]

Are you opposed to the flat tax of 15% with no deductions for those making over $50,000 and no tax for those making less, which many speculate would fill the tax coffers?

Nah, I might be fine with that, though I wouldn't object to seeing the rich get f*cked over like they've f*cked everyone else over.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Just because I'm too tired to give the argument myself tonight, and also because I am a little drunk...:woohoo: Here are the "pros" of the institution of a flat tax...

Simplicity
The enactment of a flat tax system simplifies the tax code by only taxing income at its source. The U.S. tax code for example is currently over 9 million words long and contains many loopholes, deductions, and exemptions that - proponents of flat-tax claim - complicate and create inefficiencies in tax collection. It is argued that the system in its form stifles economic growth by distorting economic incentives and allowing and encouraging tax evasion. With the transparency of a flat tax, there are fewer incentives to create tax shelters and avoid paying one’s share.

The simplest form would clearly be the pure flat tax without deductions. The Economist article points out that it would be possible for companies to just deduct the flat rate from their entire pool of taxable income and send it in to the government along with the check for the flat rate on their profits. As an example, say that in 2005, ACME makes $3 million in profit, spent $2 million on salaries and wages, and a further $1 million on other expenses that the IRS treats as taxable income, such as stock options, bonuses, and certain executive privileges. If the flat tax rate was 15%, the company need only withhold that percent of the listed expenses and send in a single check for $900,000 to the IRS. Most of their employees wouldn't have to send in a check of their own. They would only have to if they made an outside income from personal ventures. Even if one made money on an equity transaction regarded as "short term capital gains" which is taxed at normal income tax rates, the brokerage could withhold the 15% of the difference and send it in with their taxes. The Economist points out that such a system would reduce the number of filers that need to send in tax forms from the current 130 million individuals, families, and businesses, to a mere 8 million businesses.


Cost of processing tax returns
It is also argued that the governments' cost of processing tax returns would become much smaller since the relevant tax bodies could be abolished or massively downsized. Currently, Germany for example spends 3.7 billion euros per year on this.

Height of tax revenues
Some proponents of a flat tax claim that it will result in higher revenues for the government, by simplifying the tax code and removing certain loopholes currently used by corporations and the rich to pay less taxes.


Eliminating double taxation
A flat tax is one method of eliminating double taxation. This is a benefit to retired people collecting from personal savings accounts, corporate dividends, and capital gains, all of which would already have been taxed at the corporate income level. Social security benefits (a tax in itself) would also become free of taxation. Estates taxes, also known as the “death tax”, would be phased out allowing more wealth to be bequeathed to family members.


Charity
Charitable giving would be helped by a flat tax in that people give more when their incomes are higher. A survey conducted ranked tax deduction #7 in a list of reasons people have for donating money to worthy causes. The poor will also be helped in that a simplified tax code will eliminate the need for costly tax experts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/

[strandinthewind]

There's no logic behind it. Instituting a sales tax that would end up costing citizens twenty-five cents on the dollar once state, local, and federal taxes are added up is just plain dumb and unrealistic.

I tend to agree that the sales tax would be hard to implement and I think it would be ineffective. I am all for my version of the flat tax though and many think it would work. Interestingly, under my plan, many people would pay more in taxes than they now do.

[strandinthewind]

Nah, I might be fine with that, though I wouldn't object to seeing the rich get f*cked over like they've f*cked everyone else over.

Does this mean we can make out now :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[dissention]

Just because I'm too tired to give the argument myself tonight, and also because I am a little drunk...:woohoo: Here are the "pros" of the institution of a flat tax...

Simplicity
The enactment of a flat tax system simplifies the tax code by only taxing income at its source. The U.S. tax code for example is currently over 9 million words long and contains many loopholes, deductions, and exemptions that - proponents of flat-tax claim - complicate and create inefficiencies in tax collection. It is argued that the system in its form stifles economic growth by distorting economic incentives and allowing and encouraging tax evasion. With the transparency of a flat tax, there are fewer incentives to create tax shelters and avoid paying one’s share.

The simplest form would clearly be the pure flat tax without deductions. The Economist article points out that it would be possible for companies to just deduct the flat rate from their entire pool of taxable income and send it in to the government along with the check for the flat rate on their profits. As an example, say that in 2005, ACME makes $3 million in profit, spent $2 million on salaries and wages, and a further $1 million on other expenses that the IRS treats as taxable income, such as stock options, bonuses, and certain executive privileges. If the flat tax rate was 15%, the company need only withhold that percent of the listed expenses and send in a single check for $900,000 to the IRS. Most of their employees wouldn't have to send in a check of their own. They would only have to if they made an outside income from personal ventures. Even if one made money on an equity transaction regarded as "short term capital gains" which is taxed at normal income tax rates, the brokerage could withhold the 15% of the difference and send it in with their taxes. The Economist points out that such a system would reduce the number of filers that need to send in tax forms from the current 130 million individuals, families, and businesses, to a mere 8 million businesses.

Cost of processing tax returns
It is also argued that the governments' cost of processing tax returns would become much smaller since the relevant tax bodies could be abolished or massively downsized. Currently, Germany for example spends 3.7 billion euros per year on this.

Height of tax revenues
Some proponents of a flat tax claim that it will result in higher revenues for the government, by simplifying the tax code and removing certain loopholes currently used by corporations and the rich to pay less taxes.

Eliminating double taxation
A flat tax is one method of eliminating double taxation. This is a benefit to retired people collecting from personal savings accounts, corporate dividends, and capital gains, all of which would already have been taxed at the corporate income level. Social security benefits (a tax in itself) would also become free of taxation. Estates taxes, also known as the “death tax”, would be phased out allowing more wealth to be bequeathed to family members.

Charity
Charitable giving would be helped by a flat tax in that people give more when their incomes are higher. A survey conducted ranked tax deduction #7 in a list of reasons people have for donating money to worthy causes. The poor will also be helped in that a simplified tax code will eliminate the need for costly tax experts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/

Nope, sorry, no sale. It's regressive taxation and it would place an unfair burden on those who are already poor.

[dissention]

Does this mean we can make out now :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

Oh, I suppose. :p

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Not true I think that most every American would benefit under a flat tax system as I stated above. An increase in national income will increase charitable giving, lower interest rates will more than offset the loss of the mortgage deduction, the income exemption will continue the tax code's progressive precedent, the deduction for dependent children will double, and every taxpayer will see their tax rates reduced.

[dissention]

Not true

Bull****. :wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Bull****. :wavey:

Now you know if I said that I would be accused of "avoiding" the subject! :)
However I am not going to be like most around here, and just chalk it up to the whole "agree to disagree" thing.

[dissention]

However I am not going to be like most around here, and just chalk it up to the whole "agree to disagree" thing.

You're going to have to because I think I'm right and you think you're right. Those are the breaks.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You're going to have to because I think I'm right and you think you're right. Those are the breaks.

We are both two stubborn ass bastards aren't we? :lol:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Joshy...


you did that on purpose. why?




:distress:

[dissention]

Joshy...


you did that on purpose. why?




:distress:

Because I <3 Janeane.

[gldstwmn]

Cheney is going DOWN. I can't contain my excitement. I told everyone in my building that when he gets indicted, I'm having a party because it's a day that needs celebrating.

And I am just in heaven knowing that because the right-wingers pushed for Paula Jones to sue Clinton, they opened the door for Plame and Wilson to sue the Bush administration in a civil suit. Happy days are here at last.

It will be a very good day.:nod:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Because I <3 Janeane.

But at least pick a liberal who is educated and aware of SOME politics.

But hey. I love her too, if only for the "now that I'm sober" line! :lol:

I'm just messin' with ya.

[dissention]

But at least pick a liberal who is educated and aware of SOME politics.

You must not know much about her. She earned degrees in History and American Studies before becoming a comedian. In comparison, Sean Hannity never even graduated college. :laugh:

[ragandbone]

Not true
Bull****. :wavey::lol:

I don't know why, but the sight of this little exchange made me very happy, and reminded me of the following:

Curtin: "Dan, only a reactionary ass such as yourself could oppose full diplomatic relations with China. As President Carter said, it's a simple recognition of reality. How can we ignore eight hundred million people? But, then again, I guess it's your habit to ignore reality. You're a paranoid schizophrenic, Dan, whose politics are obviously born out of some buried infantile trauma. You hide from reality, constructing a hostile world to justify your own incapacity for love and compassion. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world. ..."

Aykroyd: "Jane, you ignorant slut. My personality profile is not at issue here, any more than is your inability to achieve orgasm. The issue is Taiwan. How can we expect to have the confidence of any free nation when we stab one of our most faithful allies in the back? I suppose you'd like to conduct our foreign policy the way you conduct your private life, hopping from bed to bed with anyone who can do you some good. Then what do you have? An old, dried-out scuz that no decent man would be seen with. Is that what you want for America? It's too late for you, Jane, but our country still has some dignity left, you hosebag!"

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You must not know much about her. She earned degrees in History and American Studies before becoming a comedian. In comparison, Sean Hannity never even graduated college. :laugh:

I didn't mention Sean did I? Funny you didn't bring up my Ann...because we all know Janeane's accomplishments compared to Ann's...well...That would be too harsh, even for me!

Regardless of whether the individual graduated from high school or an elite university that factor really is beside the point. If you are going to go and start arguing politics (because your career is dead), then at least know what you speak of. EVERY TIME I have seen the woman on TV, or heard her speak she comes off as if she is still boozin' it up.

But, seriously...if she floats your boat then more power to you!

[dissention]

Regardless of whether the individual graduated from high school or an elite university that factor really is beside the point. If you are going to go and start arguing politics (because your career is dead), then at least know what you speak of. EVERY TIME I have seen the woman on TV, or heard her speak she comes off as if she is still boozin' it up.

I wasn't aware her career was dead. She was never a big movie star to begin with.

Though I do find it funny that you accuse her of acting drunk when your admitted idol is Ann Coulter. :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I wasn't aware her career was dead. She was never a big movie star to begin with.

Though I do find it funny that you accuse her of acting drunk when your admitted idol is Ann Coulter. :laugh:

The difference is that Ann Coulter isn't an alcoholic, who drinks before she makes statements, as Ms. Janeane appears to be doing. I sure hate to sound snobbish but Ann is a sophisticated, intellectual who is proudly part of the northern conservative elite. Janeane, is well...a never was.

[dissention]

The difference is that Ann Coulter isn't an alcoholic, who drinks before she makes statements, as Ms. Janeane appears to be doing. I sure hate to sound snobbish but Ann is a sophisticated, intellectual who is proudly part of the northern conservative elite. Janeane, is well...a never was.

:laugh:

Thanks for the laugh, doll.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:laugh:

Thanks for the laugh, doll.

YW! :xoxo:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Sorry..I was just watching this video clip (http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/video/hc-200411180009.mov)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Watch as Bob Beckel goes CRAZY! THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOO FREAKIN' FUNNY! Although it is posted by mediamatters in an attempt to smear her...it just doesn't work! THIS IS GREAT!

[Johnny Stew]

Ann is a sophisticated, intellectual"Sophisticated" people don't result to childish insults and name-calling.

Ann might be intelligent, but she has the emotional maturity of my 13 year old cousin.

No, I take that back... my cousin is most definitely more mature than Annie.