Flat tax

Socrtease said:
Super and I are on the same sheet of music with this one. I would split the baby between SF and GL and make it a 17% tax and let the finance majors show me where the cut off should be as far as income. I like 30k per adult and some OTHER amount per children. I would keep the additional 10% on everything over 1 mil, with a provision to suspend it when we don't need it, ie should we balance our books. I think this plan would finance the government's operation.
Click to expand...

yeah, my 20% number (as I mentioned in a subsequent post) is purely arbitrary on my part. I don't care too much if it turns out that 15 or 17 or 22 percent is the actual number used. It is the foundation of the plan that I want.

I do disagree with your addition of a deduction for children though. With a $30k deduction per adult, the average family is getting enough (60k) of a deduction.
 
Socrtease said:
If you guys REALLY want to get this off the ground say for the next mid-terms, I would suggest that you form a non-profit. Call it Citizens for a Flat Tax or the Tax Fairness Society, whatever, and start raising some cash donations. Then PAY someone to put together a really professional website with an .org address. I would be willing to kick in some funds and I bet we could find a considerable amount of people who would as well. Hell we could even put in a tax calculator and show people the difference in their taxes under the current gun in your face method and the flat tax. If people can SEE that it will save them money they are much more likely to jump on board.
Click to expand...

A very good idea. I think I shall call it "A Tax plan that even morons and lawyers can understand Society"
 
Socrtease said:
You keep throwing them up for me and I will keep knocking them outta the park!
Click to expand...

All that said, I do like your idea. Perhaps I shall take it to the next level and indeed start up a non-profit.

I also like the idea of having the calculator on there. Will have to find a web-designer and a lawyer to help set the non-prof and the site. Definitely something to think about.
 
Superfreak said:
All that said, I do like your idea. Perhaps I shall take it to the next level and indeed start up a non-profit.

I also like the idea of having the calculator on there. Will have to find a web-designer and a lawyer to help set the non-prof and the site. Definitely something to think about.
Click to expand...
I am going to do some after office study to see what I need to do to set up a nonprofit. I have set up S-corps, and LLC's and Corps. Once I see what all is entailed I wll send you a message and we will get started. Give me a few days.
 
Just a suggestion - it does not HAVE to be a 501c3 to be non profit. It should not take that much to get the website up and running, so the need to qualify for c3 status is not really necessary. (there are additional IRS hoops to jump through for C3s) The only difference between anything 501, and 501c3 is c3 allows donations to be deducted from the donor's taxes, while other types which are easier to qualify for do not. In all cases, a 501 organization is non profit and does not pay taxes on donations.

You will also need a board of directors, and a set of bylaws describing the intent and scope of the organization, election procedures for officers, etc. By laws are something I have done before to qualify organizations, mostly astronomy clubs, as non profit for tax purposes. (Don't want to have to pay taxes on dues, ya know....)
 
Good Luck said:
Just a suggestion - it does not HAVE to be a 501c3 to be non profit. It should not take that much to get the website up and running, so the need to qualify for c3 status is not really necessary. (there are additional IRS hoops to jump through for C3s) The only difference between anything 501, and 501c3 is c3 allows donations to be deducted from the donor's taxes, while other types which are easier to qualify for do not. In all cases, a 501 organization is non profit and does not pay taxes on donations.

You will also need a board of directors, and a set of bylaws describing the intent and scope of the organization, election procedures for officers, etc. By laws are something I have done before to qualify organizations, mostly astronomy clubs, as non profit for tax purposes. (Don't want to have to pay taxes on dues, ya know....)
Click to expand...


True, it does not have to be a c3.... but it tends to be easier to raise money when the donations are tax deductible. Given what we are talking about doing, while we won't need a lot of money to begin with, eventually we will if we wish to advertise to a broader market.

That said, thanks for the input.
 
Superfreak said:
True, it does not have to be a c3.... but it tends to be easier to raise money when the donations are tax deductible. Given what we are talking about doing, while we won't need a lot of money to begin with, eventually we will if we wish to advertise to a broader market.

That said, thanks for the input.
Click to expand...
The one experience I had with the beginnings of a non-profit that went 501c3 it was easier to qualify for the c3 status after the organization had been up and running for a while. Their first application, though it was acceptable to the state they filed in for non-profit status was turned down for C3 by the IRS. But after they'd been running for a year they had records to show, and their reapplication for c3 went through without a hitch.

Also, getting non-profit status is much faster without the added exemption qualifications. Since the amount of money needed at the start is relatively low, enough people interested in really pushing for a flat tax system would probably donate to the cause without the write off (I know I would!) Such an approach would get the foundation off the ground much faster.

And then when the ball gets rolling and more cash flow is needed for a good, solid. nation-wide informational campaign, we'd have enough "public benefit" history to show that would grease the IRS wheels.
 
Supply exceeds current demand for oil domestically, Topper. Tell me how again how more drilling will reduce prices?
 
Good Luck said:
Good going! We need to get a lot of people on board willing to spend the few minutes a month (and even a few stamps since snail mail is still more effective in gaining attention) "bothering" their legislators with a flat tax proposal.

Maybe a flat tax web site could be started with info about how it works, what the results would be, and contact links letting people simply click and send a basic pre-composed message saying they want their legislators to support the flat tax plan.
Click to expand...

There's probably already one.

I just like to point out this issue as one I'm ready and willing to compromise on.
 
Watermark said:
There's probably already one.

I just like to point out this issue as one I'm ready and willing to compromise on.
Click to expand...
There are several. But not like the one discussed in this thread.

The ones already out there do several things differently. First, most do not have a standard deduction, or have a very low standard deduction. Second, most still do not propose to treat all sources of income equally, and, depending on which camp is proposing it, ranges from having significantly higher rates on investment income to having investment income entirely exempt.

Also, the ones out there are sub-heading pages of political organizations pushing other issues. There is no organization with a web page entirely dedicated to supporting a comprehensive flat tax plan. (At least not that register in the top 1000 hits of a google search)

There IS, and has been posted here, a website and organization specifically devoted to the so-called "fair" tax, (The national sales tax idea.) which is an idea I will fight tooth and nail to prevent. I am already forced to fight against a state sales tax in Montana. Thank God for our state constitution, because very 4-6 years the damned legislature passes one, but cannot put it into law unless the public also passes it. Last vote lost by 18 percentage points. You'd think they'd learn.
 
income is income. At least in my book and it should all be taxed equally flat with the same exceptions on the floor amount of income that can be taxed. 17% on wages 17% on investments. This really isn't rocket science and if you don't have investments, get some so you can one day also realize the american dream of having other people work really hard and make you money because you invested your money in their company so they could have a place to work really hard to make you money.
 
I honestly think all a flat tax would do is raise middle class taxes. It's not a good idea from that perspective. The middle class deserves a tax break if anything, and the only people who've gotten a tax break in a long time are the ultra-rich.
 
Watermark said:
I honestly think all a flat tax would do is raise middle class taxes. It's not a good idea from that perspective. The middle class deserves a tax break if anything, and the only people who've gotten a tax break in a long time are the ultra-rich.
Click to expand...
That depends on how large the standard deduction is. A $30K per adult standard deduction would drop the tax burden to zero for anyone making less than $30K per year, or $60K per couple filing jointly. That's a 100% tax cut from the current system for an individual making between $8750 and $30K, and for couples making between $17500 and $60K. (Making less than $8750 or (17,500 has zero taxes anyway.)

Let's go to upper middle income. Say a person makes $60K. Under the current system his taxes would be around $9000. Under a 20% flat tax with 30K standard deduction, that would drop to $6000.

Of course if we kept the current standard deduction, or eliminated all deductions as some propose, then it WOULD result in a significant increase on taxes for middle income. But the system proposed in this thread would reduce taxes for anyone making less than around $120K. ($240K for couples)

And the other thing this proposal does that others do not is treat all sources of income the same, so those handy tax shelters and deferments available to ultra high incomes go away, effectively raising their taxes even while lowering their tax rate. After all, 20% on 100% of total income is greater than 35% on 50% (or lower) of total income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top