Collegiate Times

One thing you forgot to mention was that back in the Reagan years, we essentially went to a flat tax, with no tricks or gimmicks, and look where it is today. We tried that, and Congress still muddied it up through lobbyists and special interests. What we need it the FairTax, which would remove a lot of power from Washington politicians, lobbyists, and special interests and put that power back into the hands of the taxpayers. Now, if there was a way to put into codes that the flat tax could not be altered, revised, or otherwise messed up and it stayed just as simple as say paying 15% of your income, with no other tricks or loopholes to jump through, that would be good. The evil rich (who employ most Americans) would have more incentive to keep the money their companies earn here in the U.S. for expansion, new equipment, new offices or factories, new employees, and other economic investment. The same could occur with the FairTax. In any case, the tax codes are a big part of why the rich shelter their money offshore, companies move headquarters to foreign countries, shipping is based in forgeign countries, and our jobs are moving to placves like China and India. Death and taxes are the only 2 certainties in life for sure, and our current tax codes will lead to our economic death in the world if we keep with the status quo.

"On paper, it seems like it is unfair and favors the rich." Everyone pays the same percentage. Unless you believe in class warfare and in punishing people for success, "on paper" the flat tax seems pretty fair to me.

Anyone remember why the US has an income tax anyway? The Income Tax amendment was drafted SPECIFICLALY to provide additional funding necessary for sustaining the warfighting effort in, I believe, World War I. As the federal government has become more and more bloated with welfare programs, the income tax has become more and more of a 'necessary evil.' I don't consider it particularly necessary, though, as this country existed for a century and a half without penalizing the success of its most innovate and productive citizens.

Taxes pay for more than just "welfare programs." If you don't want to pay taxes, then leave the country. They are here to stay and without them, our government would simply crumble.

The government would crumble only because of its dependence on bloated budgets. I realize that taxes pay for more than welfare programs - including the military, judges, other civil servants necessarily to the running of the nation - but it is worth noting that all these things existed also long before the federal income tax was instituted.

The FairTax is the only solution to this country's problems. Returns power to the people, encourages businesses to operate in the US instead of fleeing to overseas tax havens, taxes only based on how much one buys, etc. The benefits are nearly endless and everyone owes it to themselves to read "FairTax: The Truth." It's only $10 at Amazon, and that's a small price to pay to have your eyes opened to the atrocities we allow our government to commit against us each and every day.

It's ironic that the people who oppose government and taxes are the ones who most benefit from them. Where do you suppose the money came from to fund VA Tech? What about the roads that got you here? Would you really want to go through toll booths on 81? I think Fiar Tax makes sense and stop all those corporate loop holes. Stop the morgage deductions and just have everyone pay their share.

The point isn't that ALL taxes are bad; the point is that we as a people are overtaxed and receive far less from the government than we give it. The Interstate Highway system would be a shining example of a federal success story - if it were better maintained, and the tax dollars collected in its name were actually used to keep those roads in top condition. Other programs, though, like Social Security and Medicare, place extraordinary strain on the system while providing no actual benefit to the public. I mean, for every dollar I've contributed to social security, I will likely see less than 75 cents of it when I retire. So why is it mandatory? Aside from the fact that Franklin Roosevelt was a fool, it is mandatory because congress uses social security now as an additional source of funding for other programs. Either a fair tax or a flat tax will fix most of the issues (so long as the flat tax is low).

I don't really have too much of a problem with a progressive tax bracketing system, though I do believe that taxation rates are too high across the board due to a bloated government rife with failing social programs. The highest tax bracket is currently 35%. Most middle class Americans probably find themselves falling in the 25-28% tax brackets. I doubt that this extra 5-10% of taxation on those who make several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year is causing them to significantly reduce their spending and cause economic stagnation. Also, remember that currently the 7.65% Social Security/Medicare taxes are only applicable to the first $97,500 of earnings. After that, the rate is only 1.45%. So those in the highest tax bracket are paying 35% + 1.45% = 36.45% on their last dollars earned, whereas many in the middle class are paying 25% + 7.65% = 32.65% on theirs. That's really not a significant difference.

Well, it's ultimately a question of social policy anyway. The GOP (used to at least) run on a platform of responsibility, where your tax dollars would be spent on what needed to be bought. The Democrats, however, tend to view taxation as a 'great social equalizer,' whereby they get to take more money from the more successful people and hand it off to the less successful. It's a class warfare argument, really, and that's why I have a huge problem with the current tax scheme - if you can find something to do with your life that is productive, meaningful, and lucrative, why should you be penalized for your success? It's hard, by the way, to support social security when you realize that for every dollar you put in now, you'll likely receive less than 75% of it when you become eligible. If other people want the government to handle their retirements, that's fine with me - but Americans should be given the option to plan for their retirement as they see fit.

I agree with you Kyle, but my point is that I don't believe that the minor difference in tax bracket burden is a terrible "punishment" to successful people. The problem is that I don't see the government becoming more efficient, and a fair tax would necessarily raise the tax rate for lower and middle income folks in order to keep revenue constant. I also agree that social security is hard to support, but the fact that these taxes are often overlooked in the discussion of overall taxation rates is troubling, especially since they are used, as you mention, for things other than social security. My intention with introducing the social security issue was to show that in fact the tax rates are not that terribly unfair to the richest members of our society.