does a flat tax pay for the wealthy?
93206
A flat tax requires that everyone pay the same percentage of their income as taxes.  In response to getting better deductions for higher income, those deductions are created in response to those who think that the wealthy should pay more than everyone else for taxes.  Here in California, the wealthy pay 48% in taxes as opposed to the poor who pay nothing because of their tax breaks.  The wealthy are forced to put their money in tax shelters, thus protecting them from paying taxes.  This forces all of the tax burden onto the middle clase as the poor pay nothing and receive all the benefits and the welthy pay nothing and don't have to worry about where their next mortgage payment is coming from.
1139783
I think get jobs would probably be the best!\n\nWhy does the left always want to tax the rich.  If you get a nice house I think you should give half of it to charity.  By the way it's the only fair thing to do.  Practice what you preach.  I am sure once you make money you will forget about taxing the rich......
205428
Well, rich people have larger / more houses so they pay more council tax than poorer people.  This is how wealth is supposedly redistributed.  In practise, rich people have accountants and lawyers and power, and try hard to wriggle out of paying taxes.  Like John Prescott.  The hypocrite.\n\nIt benefits society by giving local authorities money to spend on local issues
910157
A flat tax would tax everyone at the same rate (percentage).  There would be no exemptions or exceptions.  There would be no loop holes for the very rich to use.  A flat tax would almost eliminate the need for an IRS.  That alone is a good reason to implement a flat tax.  The other tax that has been discussed with the "USE TAX".  That would tax everything we buy but not everything we earn.
240954
Yes.  The IRS has documented that the top 50% of earners pay 96% of all the income taxes.  The top 1% pay more than a third!  So the argument to tax more of the wealthy people really isn't practical.  And when tax cuts are given, the wealthy are more likely to reinvest it and create jobs -- shouldn't they get back a proportional amount if they pay the most?  And because the bottom 50% pay so little comparatively, a tax cut to that tax bracket doesn't do much good.  But I'd take it if given!\n\nBottom line:  The suggestion to tax the wealthy even MORE than they're taxed now is only political rhetoric.  It gets the vote of the poor and lower middle class.
972213
Yes. They keep up the mantra of "no tax breaks for the rich" but they fail to mention who they consider "rich", which is anyone who isn't on welfare and voting democrat. In any event, they are very much in favor of wealth redistribution, which is a basic tenet of socialism, along with "universal health care" (SOCIALIZED medicine), and government control of property (EPA mandates, and eminent domain if it takes property from owners to advance higher tax collections). Sounds like a socialist to me.
374616
I'll assume that by wealthy, you mean people earning above $95,000 and are therefore on the top tax rate of 47%. Therefore, everytime you give them a tax break (such as a deduction for donations), they will save $47 in tax for every $100. For the normal person who is on the 30% bracket, they will only save $30 in tax for every $100 they donate. Tax breaks for the wealthy tend to more beneficial because they are already paying a high amount of tax. Tax breaks for the normal person don't look so impressive, because they pay a lower rate.\n\nIt may be because these 'normal' tax breaks are so unimpressive that the government of the day knows that people don't care on election day about the 'sandwich and a milkshake' tax break.
317737
dear, bubba\n i most certainly do believe in a flat rate tax,the thousands put out of work in the irs would give me a simple joy to know that they have to feel yhe cold hard truth of a free market econ. as someone who is paying 11% of my gross income to taxes(more than dick cheney) i would love to see a flay rate that would treat us all as equals.\n\n but alas, this will never happpen. if you make the laws you will ,make them to protect or advocate yourself and you nor i will ever be in that position, but i'll keep up the hope\n&#92;\nmy vote is for pres. bubba
885358
No. Whereas the wealthy keep the country going with their exobitant taxes they also increase the costs for everyone else to live. How can anyone justify having so much money when fellow human beings are starving?
277802
Probably.  There is a heirarchy when they come to atach your wages, and taxes are very high on the list.
457467
That's not completely fair, I believe in a fair taxation system with no tax breaks for the rich.
775793
Vote republican. Usually, they support tax breaks by imposing flat taxes in their place, hurting the lower and middle class while the rich enjoy a meager decrease in income. But keep in mind that since all the supporters of a flat tax are rich business tycoons and corrupt (or confused) politicians, you're going to end up with a nasty government any way you approach it.
925742
Income yes except for those that make poverty wages; wealth no, that would be like taxing someones income twice.
473431
pro - simplify the tax process\n\ncon - poor and middle class would pay higher taxes\n\nfor the people who think a flat tax would not hurt poor people, \nif aprox. 17% of income is collected as tax revenue and rich people pay over 30% of their income to irs where would the shortfall come from?
869029
When the Democrats are talking about taxing the rich, they are talking about anyone who doesn't make minimun wage. \n\nThey want to tax everyone as much as people will tolerate, then once the government has everyone's money, THEY get to spend it on what THEY think is right. They believe that those people who have worked hard to earn their money should give it to those who haven't.
1145655
Yes, but it's expensive so you would have to find some way to "convince" the rich to pay for it.\n\nThroughout history, this condition has been alleviated (for a short period) through a process called revolution, which is nothing more than the "have nots" convincing the "haves" that it would be in their best interest to paticipate in the redistribution of wealth.
1132548
Flat taxes never work.  a) They favor the rich b) Paying 35% on everything you purchase would theoretically work, except everyone would be INCREDIBLY pissed off.  Especially on big purchases on a house.  Nobody wants to pay $40,000 in sales tax on their house.  c) The Federal Government can't take in all the money and then redistribute it as it sees fit to the states.  Not only will it piss off every state in the union, but it also forces the states to reduce/eliminate taxation, otherwise people would have no money.  The only way the flat tax in this case would work, is if you reduced it to 10%, allowed the states to do a flat tax of up to 10% in addition, and then having a smaller graduated income tax.