Political question

[droski]

I actually think Forbes was closer to the right ballpark.

not unless you eliminate tax exempt or low tax investments like 429 plans, MLPs, or muni bonds.

 

[TennNC]

the number i have heard is 30%. keep in mind we're talking about eliminating all tax loop holes. the buffets of the world will be paying a lot more taxes than they are used to.

what would that do to charitable contributions?

 

[BigPapaVol]

what would that do to charitable contributions?

cut them by roughly 30%.

 

[TennNC]

cut them by roughly 30%.

look, I'm all for simplifying the tax code. In my narrow-minded, prejudiced view, it's complicated not only b/c of political favoritism but also to give accountants reliable, high-paying jobs. But I also don't want it to become an excuse for privatizing everything in sight and denying some basic public functions.

 

[droski]

cut them by roughly 30%.

that is a major problem, but once you start giving exemptions for this and that the cost savings from a flat tax start going away.

 

[droski]

look, I'm all for simplifying the tax code. In my narrow-minded, prejudiced view, it's complicated not only b/c of political favoritism but also to give accountants reliable, high-paying jobs. But I also don't want it to become an excuse for privatizing everything in sight and denying some basic public functions.

i think for it to be palatable for the country we have to keep the charitable exemption, energy investment breaks, 401k, 429, and muni bond exemption (otherwise municipalities will see their borrowing rates skyrocket) which means a) the irs can't be eliminated and b) the flat tax has to be higher than 17%.

 

[volinbham]

I thought I copyrighted that sucker (no pun intended).

 

[BigPapaVol]

I thought I copyrighted that sucker (no pun intended).

you spelled it differently.

 

[TennNC]

i think for it to be palatable for the country we have to keep the charitable exemption, energy investment breaks, 401k, 429, and muni bond exemption (otherwise municipalities will see their borrowing rates skyrocket) which means a) the irs can't be eliminated and b) the flat tax has to be higher than 17%.

I don't mind paying more taxes than most currently, but I'm also willing to experiment. Can't have progress without it.

 

[Sudden Impact]

The answer to all your questions is 42

Actually it is 23.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I prefer 68 and I owe you 1.

 

[rjd970]

Which sounds like a good idea, not as good as a strictly consumption based tax, but most people in Washington don't want to give up the power that taxing income gives them.

Taxes also hold the governement accountable, in theory, and limit power. If one doesn't like the way they are being taxed, or how the government is spending the money they vote in new leadership.