QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 10 2007, 04:09 PM)
No that's a difference of $1,000. -1000 + 2000 = 1000
20,000 + 2,000 = 22,000 <--- what they are used to.
20,000 - 1,000 = 19,000 <--- what they would have if their were a flat tax.
22,000 - 19,000 = 3,000 <--- the difference.
You accidentally did the summation, not the difference.
$2000 - $-1000 = $3,000
QUOTE
I think we'd have to see some real numbers for this to be credible. That doesn't actually mathematically make any sense. A flat tax is not a tax break for the rich at all.
Look at pugs previous post. Do the math. The rich pay a lot of taxes. The poor get tax money back. If the poor were to pay taxes instead of receive money, then mathematically the rich would pay less, for the gov't to get the same amount of money.
Example: Lets say the gov't receives $1,000,000 in taxes. They pay 1,000 to the poor. That means the rich paid $1,001,000.
If the poor no longer received, but paid $1,000, that means for the gov't to end up with $1,000,000, the rich would now be paying $999,000.
That is a $2000 break in what the rich would have to pay.
*These are all arbitrary #s. Made up for the example
QUOTE
I don't think they would be hurt at all. You could still provide some incentive. Take off a fraction of a percent or whatever. If tax was reformed why wouldn't the charities? Also, look up the definition of "charity". You will not find tax breaks anywhere in the definition. Why as someone who is in favor of higher taxes do you care about charity anyways? Taxes basically say that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do, so we're going to force you to give us some of it.
I worked for a non-prof for 2 years. Their #1 sales pitch, even though it isn't supposed to be, was "you get a tax break." I think it was up to a $400 donation, you could write-off $400. More than that didn't matter so they never asked for more than that. People would rather give money to charities than the gov't. I am not sure why, that is just the way people think.
P.S. It was a little while ago, it may have been only $200. I cannot remember the exact $ amount. I do think they would make up the difference eventually. But, it would take a while.
QUOTE
So even though it has the potential of improving life for everyone overall, don't do it because the potential immediate backlash is scary?
Yes. The implications would have a backlash far too great for any political party to put their name on it. I am not saying morally it is not the right thing to do. Cause it is. We should have a flat tax. I am saying that it won't happen.
QUOTE
I have to disagree with you on all points here.
That's ok. That is why these forums are fun to me. I hope we can all learn something from one another. I just feel the gov't needs money. Taxes are good to an extent if not abused. The taxes should come from the people that will be the least affected by it. The rich can afford to pay more and still keep their standard of living. If there was a flat tax, right now, a large portion of people would not be able to keep their standard of living. I don't feel there it is a penalty if you can keep your standard of living. To the poor $3,000 can crush you. To the rich $3,000 means nothing, relatively speaking.