|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 27, 2015 22:01:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 28, 2015 9:36:49 GMT -5
One more reason our tax code needs scrapped. If we simplify things the right way, it should be possible for most people to not even have to file a return.
|
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 28, 2015 9:49:45 GMT -5
How people gonna get that EITC if they don't file?... oh, they'll just direct deposit it for them, right?... oh, no checking or savings account... just put it on their EBT card, right?...
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 28, 2015 10:40:28 GMT -5
Simplifying the tax code is the right thing to do,
But it will never happen,
too many groups have too much invested in social engineering by tax reward and punishment.
Which is where the tax code becomes so dangerous to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It should collect taxes ONLY and in a fair impartial manner,
NOT USED TO REWARD OR PUNISH BEHAVIOR OR LACK THEREOF.!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on May 28, 2015 11:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 28, 2015 14:58:14 GMT -5
Which excuses NOTHING
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 28, 2015 15:54:44 GMT -5
How people gonna get that EITC if they don't file?... oh, they'll just direct deposit it for them, right?... oh, no checking or savings account... just put it on their EBT card, right?... Why shouldn't people applying for the EITC file, with the understanding that their SSN and personal ID will end up in the hands of a Russian crime syndicate? |
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on May 28, 2015 17:21:00 GMT -5
I propose a reasonable flat tax with the proviso that taxpayers can designate how/where their tax money is going to be used (along with a limit on how much money the gov't may borrow). The Congress can offer a list of recipients that taxpayers can pick from.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 28, 2015 19:44:42 GMT -5
I propose a reasonable flat tax with the proviso that taxpayers can designate how/where their tax money is going to be used (along with a limit on how much money the gov't may borrow). The Congress can offer a list of recipients that taxpayers can pick from. Flat tax yes, The rest of that I dont think so, sounds good for 20 seconds then it would fall apart faster than a politicians promise |
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on May 28, 2015 20:01:15 GMT -5
I propose a reasonable flat tax with the proviso that taxpayers can designate how/where their tax money is going to be used (along with a limit on how much money the gov't may borrow). The Congress can offer a list of recipients that taxpayers can pick from. Flat tax yes, The rest of that I dont think so, sounds good for 20 seconds then it would fall apart faster than a politicians promise But I would think there would be fewer "bridges to nowhere"... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 28, 2015 23:33:08 GMT -5
I propose a reasonable flat tax with the proviso that taxpayers can designate how/where their tax money is going to be used (along with a limit on how much money the gov't may borrow). The Congress can offer a list of recipients that taxpayers can pick from. Flat tax yes, The rest of that I dont think so, sounds good for 20 seconds then it would fall apart faster than a politicians promise Neither will work... Progressive "flat" tax with NO deductions maybe... |
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on May 29, 2015 3:01:25 GMT -5
Flat tax yes, The rest of that I dont think so, sounds good for 20 seconds then it would fall apart faster than a politicians promise Neither will work... Progressive "flat" tax with NO deductions maybe... Progressive flat tax is an oxymoron. If the tax is progressive, or allows deductions, it's not a flat tax. Plain and simple. Although it would not surprise me if the liberals labeled our current tax structure the new "flat" tax. They (with a straight face) sometimes call a club a diamond and a heart a spade...  [If you like your doctor you can keep him. And if you like your plan, you can keep it. We have to pass it to find out what's in it...]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 7:23:17 GMT -5
Going to a flat tax or any other simpler tax code would devastate the economy. Not only must you consider all the IRS staff that would be out of work but all the private companies that provide tax preparation services would go out of business.
|
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on May 29, 2015 7:56:28 GMT -5
Yeah, and think of the new bureaucacy the libs would try to implement, such as a federal Department of Retraining, to retrain all those tax workers... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on May 29, 2015 8:02:45 GMT -5
Neither will work... Progressive "flat" tax with NO deductions maybe... Progressive flat tax is an oxymoron. If the tax is progressive, or allows deductions, it's not a flat tax. Plain and simple. Although it would not surprise me if the liberals labeled our current tax structure the new "flat" tax. They (with a straight face) sometimes call a club a diamond and a heart a spade... [If you like your doctor you can keep him. And if you like your plan, you can keep it. We have to pass it to find out what's in it...]
If it's progressive with no deductions, it's a flat tax for each group... And I kept my doctor... I kept my plan... and Peliosi was 100% correct... we didn't know what all was in it until it was passed and we had it... |
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on May 29, 2015 8:11:12 GMT -5
If each group's tax rate is different, it's not a flat tax.
PA's state income tax is a 3.07% flat tax (currently, but that may change if the Dem. governor gets his way). Although there is one sort of a deduction: retirees' pensions are not taxed. I'll wager Gov. Wolf wants to change that, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 9:10:24 GMT -5
Progressive flat tax is an oxymoron. If the tax is progressive, or allows deductions, it's not a flat tax. Plain and simple. Although it would not surprise me if the liberals labeled our current tax structure the new "flat" tax. They (with a straight face) sometimes call a club a diamond and a heart a spade... [If you like your doctor you can keep him. And if you like your plan, you can keep it. We have to pass it to find out what's in it...]
If it's progressive with no deductions, it's a flat tax for each group... And I kept my doctor... I kept my plan... and Peliosi was 100% correct... we didn't know what all was in it until it was passed and we had it...
Which is grounds for her spending the rest of her life in prison, along with every other Congressman that voted for it. Their only job is to discuss and debate every bill before it's passed. They refused to do so, which ended up with the Communist Encroachment Act that we are now stuck with. They all committed fraud and extortion on the American people. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on May 29, 2015 13:33:35 GMT -5
and Peliosi was 100% correct... we didn't know what all was in it until it was passed and we had it... She was correct in the sense that Congress couldn't be bothered to read the bill ahead of passing it, which is basically their job. If I did my job like they do theirs I'd be homeless. She was incorrect to the extent she stated or believed it had to be that way. It did not. She and her colleagues could have done their job. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 29, 2015 16:25:32 GMT -5
and Peliosi was 100% correct... we didn't know what all was in it until it was passed and we had it... She was correct in the sense that Congress couldn't be bothered to read the bill ahead of passing it, which is basically their job. If I did my job like they do theirs I'd be homeless. She was incorrect to the extent she stated or believed it had to be that way. It did not. She and her colleagues could have done their job. Well, realistically, yes. They did HAVE to do it that way to get it through. Any attempt at transparency would have riled up enough special interest groups (be they pro or anti-abortion, pro or anti-illegal immigrants, pro or anti-medical marijuana, etc.) to cause it to fail. That's why it should have been done incrementally rather than on one big law. That also would have given the country an opportunity to figure out whether or not each piece was a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on May 29, 2015 17:26:54 GMT -5
Well, realistically, yes. They did HAVE to do it that way to get it through. Any attempt at transparency would have riled up enough special interest groups (be they pro or anti-abortion, pro or anti-illegal immigrants, pro or anti-medical marijuana, etc.) to cause it to fail. That's why it should have been done incrementally rather than on one big law. That also would have given the country an opportunity to figure out whether or not each piece was a good idea. Some of the pieces probably would have passed with little effort. Such as allowing kids to remain on parents' policies longer (with the parents paying extra for the extra risk, of course). And removing lifetime ceilings. Realistically that would have increased premiums, but not that much, since there aren't that many people who need that much coverage - but for those who do, the insurance company shouldn't be allowed to abandon them when they're in trouble; that's not how shared risk works. A lot of people have signed up for it, but they are older and poorer than was expected - and hence, sicker. That's going to cause premiums to rise. I was forced onto an exchange compliant policy but do not purchase though the exchange; I experienced a rate cut the first year, but a large increase negating it the second. The whole purpose of the law is to make healthcare affordable, and yet, it has few cost-containment features, and most of them are theoretical (the idea of pay for results as opposed to pay for service is an example). |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 29, 2015 21:04:51 GMT -5
Going to a flat tax or any other simpler tax code would devastate the economy. Not only must you consider all the IRS staff that would be out of work but all the private companies that provide tax preparation services would go out of business. Maybe a few would start businesses that PRODUCE something besides shuffled paperwork, that would be a plus for all. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 29, 2015 22:25:22 GMT -5
Well, realistically, yes. They did HAVE to do it that way to get it through. Any attempt at transparency would have riled up enough special interest groups (be they pro or anti-abortion, pro or anti-illegal immigrants, pro or anti-medical marijuana, etc.) to cause it to fail. That's why it should have been done incrementally rather than on one big law. That also would have given the country an opportunity to figure out whether or not each piece was a good idea. Some of the pieces probably would have passed with little effort. Such as allowing kids to remain on parents' policies longer (with the parents paying extra for the extra risk, of course). And removing lifetime ceilings. Realistically that would have increased premiums, but not that much, since there aren't that many people who need that much coverage - but for those who do, the insurance company shouldn't be allowed to abandon them when they're in trouble; that's not how shared risk works. A lot of people have signed up for it, but they are older and poorer than was expected - and hence, sicker. That's going to cause premiums to rise. I was forced onto an exchange compliant policy but do not purchase though the exchange; I experienced a rate cut the first year, but a large increase negating it the second. The whole purpose of the law is to make healthcare affordable, and yet, it has few cost-containment features, and most of them are theoretical (the idea of pay for results as opposed to pay for service is an example). Well, that's just it... Let the 20 something's stay on parents insurance, and expand Medicaid a bit, and you pretty much solve the whole problem of coverage. Most people who weren't insured before, were either already Medicaid eligible, or could afford it and just didn't sign up. The bulk of the rest were that 20 something age group. But the left is more interested in control than solving the problem. Cost was another problem, but Obamacare only made that one worse. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 22:28:38 GMT -5
Puppettax was designed to fail, so The Puppet and his Communist allies can say "see, we just need to go to single payer, so no one gets any health care, and pays everything they have for not getting it". It was never anything but a Trojan horse to force everyone onto the Federal dole, and completely negate all state's rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 29, 2015 22:30:32 GMT -5
Puppettax was designed to fail, so The Puppet and his Communist allies can say "see, we just need to go to single payer, so no one gets any health care, and pays everything they have for not getting it". It was never anything but a Trojan horse to force everyone onto the Federal dole, and completely negate all state's rights. I know it seems that way, but I think Obama, Pelosi and Reid are a sort of intelligence black hole, and not nearly bright enough to pull that off. |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on May 30, 2015 6:08:38 GMT -5
Puppettax was designed to fail, so The Puppet and his Communist allies can say "see, we just need to go to single payer, so no one gets any health care, and pays everything they have for not getting it". It was never anything but a Trojan horse to force everyone onto the Federal dole, and completely negate all state's rights. I partially agree with you, I think failure was/is in the back of their greedy little minds as a "progressive" back up plan in case of its very probable failure. |
|
