I have a better idea...let's reduce the size of government so we can get rid of the income tax and not replace it with anything!! (that worked up until 1913!)
Actually, if we reduce the size of government the jobless rate will go down. You can't think in terms of just the government workers who will be out of a job, you have to look at the economy as a whole. When we all have more money through the removal of taxation, we will all have more to invest in productive enterprises, thus increasing the demand for labor (jobs). It's like putting automation in manufacturing. You may have a loss of manual assembly jobs, but you will have an increase in jobs making, selling, and maintaining the automation devises. So at worst it is only changing the types of jobs available. Plus you will have a gain in productivity that will lead to increased wages and revenues for investing that will in turn create more jobs. If you want to look at those businesses that supply government, here too, some of those jobs will change, but overall the businesses will soon pick up on supplying other productive businesses rather than government so the net effect will only be the change in types of jobs not the jobless rate. In the end, if you have the knowledge to run any size of business, you know that it can not be burdened with too much overhead compared to it's ability to produce things. If it does it will not stay in business for long. Government is overhead...they don't produce anything...only "manage". We have too much overhead in this country and it will not survive if we don't reduce this overhead to what the production can support.
TivertonAudio Excellent point. You are the type of voter and citizen that can protect freedom. You just refuted this guy with sound logic and truth. Why do we live amongst people of this kind? Why not live amongst those who have a concern and respect for logic and freedom?
C Warren I agree...except maybe 90% but what's 10% between friends? lol You are correct in your assessment that cutting the size of government does little to cut the current income tax system so long as we keep spending (borrowing) at the current levels due to this fact that all of the income tax revenues go to just paying the interest on the dept. They have to go hand in hand...reduce the size of government and reduce the spending to a level that is equal or less than what is taken in via taxes...and to a point that allows the ellimination of the income tax (or a flat tax) altogether. I'm glad you brought this up as I would have liked to address this in my original reply to the guy who thought the jobless rate would go up. At that time I was only addressing the jobless rate argument.
liams923 idiot. If a poor Person pays 10 % of 100$ he will pay 10$ tax If a RICH person pays 10% On 100 000 $ income He or she will pay 10 000 $ TAX So RICH people WILL WILL WILL pay More tax you idiot
Think about the waste of all of the educated people who go into being accountants. They could be doing something productive, but instead, they just figure out how much you owe the government. Now that is a waste of intellectual capital if I ever saw it.
I agree. Then again the recipients of taxation e.g. welfare clients, politicians, and any other government bureaucrat will not relinquish taxes and regulations because their livelihood depends on it. I don't understand though. Those of us that agree that agree taxes shouldn't exist, why don't we form our own alliance in a U.S State? Instead why do we waste our time talking to people who don't care about their freedom? I think there is enough of freedom minded individuals to form a utopia and tax haven. Form a limited government with function of the military and police functions to protect our rights. Anarchy is not advisable because any irrational individual would use force to accomplish their goals should logic and persuasion fail them through their dishonest efforts.
My ultimate preference is for a fair tax, but I'll just as easily go for the flat tax as proposed by Forbes if it means getting much closer to the desired goal. Certainly better than the current monster that is the tax code.
We already have a flat tax. Everyone pays ~15% of their income up to $100,000 in income per individual. This tax isn't even considered in the income tax and you will never get it back. The flat tax is here and it is higher than the tax "required" to fund the constitutional functions of gov't, yet you still have to pay more taxes on top of this amount.
As a kid, it was always common sense to me that the only fair tax was a flat tax. I've never met anyone who enjoyed paying taxes, especially to a congress that has a 7% approval rating.
Anthony G. Actually a sales tax would not be fair and voluntary either because a store is forced to charge that tax for their products. A store can't just say "You only have to pay what you see on the tag" because they have to charge tax. The government makes them so it isn't voluntary. Plus the customer just wants to pay the store for their product they don't want to pay the government. They're making a transaction with the store not the government but the government wants a slice too so the charge this. How about either all voluntary tax or no taxes at all?
I can go with a flat tax or a consumption tax. I'd rather they just pick one and let's see how it works. If we don't like it, try the other. The current system is a disaster!
How did our Founders pay for government? Income is not the answer! I think it was duties on imports that paid the lion's share. If the government would follow the limits imposed by the Constitution, it really wouldn't cost all that much. Most of the costs would transfer to the states(10th Amendment). They would decide which programs are affordable. Competition between states would determine which programs succeed and which fail. Successes would be copied and failures would be abandoned...unless you're a lib and desperately cling to proven failures(minimum wage, affirmative action, etc).
That sounds like a good idea. Making the competition between states prevail, and by forcing states to live within their budget. (California and Illinois would be doomed). There are only a few things the federal government should cover including: military expenses, paying back our current debts, etc,...
Flat rate (10-15%)on ALL income. No credits, no deductions. It would be nice to get rid of income tax and go with sales tax, but we would also have to repeal the 16th amendment, or we would end up with both a sales tax and an Income tax
Flat tax is horrible. Certain costs of living such are fixed. Your water, electricity and heating costs don''t change based on your income and we all need these to survive, you also can't eat less then ~2000 calories and not get sick. And if we are talking about sickness, you have to pay the same money to see the doctor too. Flat tax would only be fair if you're taxing non-essential income (everything after basic living expenses).
@@Fankas2000 irrelevant point; costs of living are not fixed (rich pay way more for the cost of living, so should we tax them less since their cost of living is high?) and plenty of people can survive (and even thrive) off less than 2k calories/day; also, medical bills are discounted significantly depending on your income status, to a point that it becomes even free for many people
@@Teigrgwyn "costs of living are not fixed (rich pay way more for the cost of living, so should we tax them less since their cost of living is high?)" I see you din't get my point. Certain life costs are fixed in that you can't survive without them. Case and point, when winter comes YOU NEED CENTRAL HEATING OR YOU START LOSING LIMBS TO FROSTBITE. But you are fine and dandy without an indoors swimming pool. "plenty of people can survive (and even thrive) off less than 2k calories/day" Yeah and all of them are 5 feet tall midgets living sedentary lifestyles. "medical bills are discounted significantly depending on your income status, to a point that it becomes even free for many peoples" Maybe in your country thats the situation, but in my country Lithuania (which has a flat tax) certain medications are discounted for the elderly, invalids and very really for students. Everyone else gets to pay full price.
@@Fankas2000 you don't need central heating i don't know why you'd think people are midgets due to calorie deficits in the US, medical is discounted for the poor, too, if you actually apply you might get a significantly reduced price
@@Teigrgwyn "you don't need central heating" Electrical heating still costs money... "I don't know why you'd think people are midgets due to calorie deficits" Because a regular size man will waste away with less then 2000 calories a day. "in the US, medical is discounted for the poor, too," I was giving my countries example.
C Warren Now, you know it goes to pay more than just that. It goes to pay for all of their outrageous and ever increasing out of control pork barrel projects and slush funds.
I would like to see a new amendment to the constitution. It would read "All laws must be written at a high school reading level. All potential laws must be completely read by anyone trying to vote it into law before they can cast their vote."
A hidden cost---the complexity of the tax system requires thousands if not millions of man-years be taken out of the national product in the calculations.
Make USA great again 15% flat income tax + Social Security 15% US manufacturing subsidy 15% US distribution subsidy 15% US logistics / shipping subsidy Make USA competitive again
The Massachusetts state constitution mandates a flat tax. When a referendum proposed changing to progressive taxation, it was voted down by a good margin. If the federal government spend 15-16% on non-entitlement spending, and Mitt Romney pays 13-14% tax, someone else makes up the difference (and not the rich). All spending has to be paid for somehow, via current taxation, future taxation, default on T-bill holders, or so forth. Why not just take the spending, divide by GDP or GNP, and everyone pays that.
No matter what you do with the percentages, income is what is being taxed and people of means will always find a way to redefine the money they make so that it is not fully taxed. There is no way to make taxing a population to always be fair and equitable. Why can't the government just run itself like a business. Earn profits.
Tax Exemptions next to regulation exemptions are one of the main reasons wealthy people donate to both political parties and politicians. It would take a revolt of the poor to change the status quo.
One of the huge negative effects of poor and middle class "needing" to pay for someone to do their taxes is, many many people and families don't realize now they actually get more back than they payed in throughout the year. I'm middle class, but I've done my own taxes so I realize this. If the common person new all these numbers, it would put a whole new spin on the "pay your fair share movement.
A flat tax doesn't protect the big shots from having offshore accounts, and various laundering tactics. I prefer to eliminate the unconstitutional income tax and use a consumption tax that simply cannot be avoided. The main issue is the poor, who should not be taxed at all. I remember Gary Johnson, while running for President 4 years ago, proposed a yearly rebate check, which solves (somewhat) that problem. I don't recall if foreign purchases can be taxed in this way though. Could be an issue. I'd hate for people to buy as much foreign product as possible, although would it make up for shipping international shipping fees? Aiyoo! So complicated. It still sounds better than income tax though.
I don't know about that. The consumption tax could be the most regressive tax out there. It disincentivizes spending and would make prices go up which will hurt the economy more than the income tax, I know you already have a sales tax but it is small but if it were the main source of revenue for the government imagine what the democrats would do with it
Khechari Ahhh I am no where near a "Big Shot". The current tax code does nothing to stop me from saving my hard earned money from the US Racketeers greedy socialist paws.
lee brondum I agree that is one school of thought. The other is a freedom from paying taxes on money you directly earned. I am considered a cheap skate could have retired at 40 now i am 43 and still run 3 businesses 1 bank and work. It incentivises wiser choices about what to do with your take home pay or profit. Saving needs a boost. All industry as well as I can forecast tax burden into a known future. Tax code is ridiculous and as seen with the Tea Party Scandal the IR$ can and will be used as a tool for no good. Consumption is a quick solution. Flat tax could be a more long term? I am no economist but I know I do not hold the bulk of my liquid assets or any of my businesses here due to Tax codes and I am small potatoes cant even imagibe the big guys.
Alex Vandrummer I think taxis only stop for you if you hail them and then you pay them at the end of the ride from your own pocket. If we start using sales tax to pay for taxis I think that would be socialist and destroy the economy. I don’t want my sales tax dollars paying for your damn taxi rides all across town. Please stop spreading communist propaganda delete your account now. Children are on this website and the last thing we need is for the next generation to be influenced by your awful awful Karl Marx ideas of having sales tax pay for your taxi rides.
Sales tax instead of income tax. Its flat tax and less people have to file. The merchants already know their tax burden by the amount they collected. would even allow taxing of borrowed money which isn't now.
And a flat tax, I would prefer to say linear taxation, works even better when you combine it with a negative income tax, the one proposed bij Milton Friedman.
I think that we should do an extremely limited progressive tax, where poor pay 8%, middle pay 10%, and rich pay 12%, that way the lower class can work up, but the people that can work that don’t also pay a 12% tax like the rich, that way they start working, tho if they can’t work they do have some different tax
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, Congress imposed its first personal income tax in 1861. It was part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Congress also enacted the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a 3% tax on incomes above $600, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864. >>This income tax was repealed in 1872.
I'm in favor of at flat tax rate limited to 7.5% at the federal and state level, for a combined rate never to exceed 15%. Anything else is bull shit to me. No deductions, no exemptions, no incentives, and no IRS. We would prosper beyond belief. We would also reduce our debt, and much of the burden created by the funding of unconstitutional government functions that present day government forces the American people to pick up the tab for.
Why do we not have a more voluntary tax system? No income tax, no tax on your home. Sales tax, cool, then you truly have freedom and choices. We never truly own our home, after 30 years paying for it then you pay taxes on it until you die. Imagine how much money would be spent into the economy if we had more money to spend.
Get Steve in there. Put his ass in there! Trump needs to appoint a dream team. A few members should be: Steve Forbes, T Boone Pickens, Carl Icahn, Jim Rogers, and Peter Schiff.
They take 20 % out of my weekly check. That is one day a week. No 401k no insurance. I am guessing that is another 20% . they claim you will get your 401 back on retirement. But not always. Up to 2 days pay. Plus sales taxes, rent taxes, utilities taxes, 10 % for charity / church gets 10%. That's another day. We pay around 60% = 3 days pay in taxes I am guessing if you figure the works. Now the bills themselves are another deduction.
S.P.A.M. Tax = Same Percentage Above the Minimum Tax. That's much clearer than "Flat Tax." Also, "Fair Tax" should be referred to by what it really is, a SALES TAX.
Flat tax my eye. After the feds get done you have state, local and property taxes. Every other tax you pay on anything you purchase or utility bills, insurance and all the rest. Flat tax in toto isn't ever going to happen.
Just having one tax rate is not much of a simplification. The calculation of taxable income rather than applying the rates to that figure is the complex part. The tax code rather than the rate is the source of complexity.
Who else would like to see an itemized bill of your taxes? Also you should only be taxed on your base pay income, not on any additional income from working overtime or receiving a work bonus. Hard work should be rewarded but not stealing a percentage of it. Why would anyone want to work harder to only pay more?
I think at least for businesses there needs to be an experimental flat tax so no business owner will be fearful of being put into a higher tax bracket for hiring more employees and/or expanding the businesses.
A flat tax doesn't have to preclude the ability to have deductions. Deductions can be an important tool in having a carrot with a stick to get the american people to do things. Less deductions obviously is better because it keeps it simpler and less open to manipulation, but it's hard enough to get flat tax reform to pass without complete gutting the primary tool congress uses to enact fiscal policies. Yes let's start from scratch, but we can't try to change both the core structure of our tax code and the core method congress uses to influence the economy at the same time.
He should do a segment on the Fair Tax to complement this. Personally, I think the Fair Tax is the better solution since ALL federal taxes are replaced with a single consumption tax at a single rate. Then no IRS!!! And since it's a consumption tax, you don't know when you're paying the taxes anyway. The more you spend, the more you pay in taxes. At least people are talking about simplifying the tax code which is good.
I believe we should eliminate income tax. Set up a sales tax that can only be charged at the retail level (no “value added” tax along the manufacturing and production path). Make sure this tax is added at the cash register, not rolled into the price (like gas tax) so people are well aware of the impact of taxation. This would quickly produce a push to make politicians reduce spending, which is currently a major problem. The amendment allowing income tax only passes because of the “guarantee” that it would never exceed 2% of any person’s income. Of course, that promise came from politicians, so no surprise it was a lie.
I love your hopeful idealism of "we the people" getting upset when "we" see "our" actual taxes and thereby forcing the government to spend less. Mine crashed on the hard rocks of reality a couple of decades ago, and there's no rebuilding that ship. If "we the people" are not furious enough by now, "we" never will be. The problem is that "we" are no longer "we." Half this nation believes that it is government's JOB to be Robin Hood: Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Robin Hood gains and expands public popularity (votes) BY ever increasing a budget of "giving." As some economist said, "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul." We're now a nation of Pauls. We're past the tipping point, which is the point of no return. At this point, there can never be enough real money in the system to dig out fast enough to stay even with the debt, much less pay it off. The "poor" that pay no federal income tax now constitute the majority of this "great" nation. Thus, full-blown "majority faction" (in the words of Hamilton in Federalist 10) has been achieved. If you're an older guy, the most nightmarish implications will probably occur after you're dead. But your handle includes "dad," so I'll assure you that your children and theirs are in for a "rough ride" that will exceed all historic precedents. And people that raise their kids to support and praise a Robin Hood government deserve every bit of what's coming to them. I would now call it an certainty that financial crisis will result in blood in the streets before there's some sort of "reset." The current status quo cannot be sustained, and the level of "reset" it will take to break the status quo will not happen "nicely" and incrementally. I'm glad that I'm old enough that I probably won't be around for it!
Steve Forbes is right. Even John Stossel is right about the quagmire. Problem is all things human go wrong especially in America where all sorts of factions would find a way to mess it up --- the Flat Tax i.e.
The only fair system of taxation (if you can call taxation fair at all - which you can't) is a usage-based system. Even a flat tax doesn't cut it. Why would someone who uses infrastructure at the same rate as everyone else have to pay more just because they earn more money?
A flat tax that gives breaks for the "poor" & deductions for children IS NOT A FLAT TAX! It doesn't have to be 10%, that would vary but every dollar brought in whether it is Apple or your grandma, kids or not, business or individual, rich or poor, is the only equitable tax. Offshore & tariffs should still apply but eliminate non profits, the tax they would pay would be more than offset by the end of fraudulent use of the tax shelter. Estimate to 1 or 2% and roll any surplus into next years bill, no returns.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a man's labor is all he has to provide for himself in life. Taxes on Labor are direct taxes just like Head taxes, Poll taxes, etc. The problems we have now with an out-of-control Federal government is because they have to much money to play with. Our Founding fathers were well aware of that and restricted its taxing powers just so it would never grow big enuf to threaten the sovereign peoples freedoms.
The income is illegal on its face period. The constitution says capitation (personal taxes) should be apportioned among the states. The taxes that are not to be apportioned among the states are impost and expost (import and export). The flat tax is equally illegal for there is no constitutional authorioty to do so. Free people do not owe taxes on thier labor taxes are paid on gains, corporate taxes. And it should be removed.
Take the Money congress needs for something and divide it up state by state according to latest census of population in that state. Give the bill to the States and they raise the money how they want. Otherwise, the Feds were given plenty of ways to raise money by Indirect means such as Excise taxes and imposts. Excise means you can avoid the tax by not doing what is taxed. Imposts are import duties on imports. If you can't avoid a tax because it is leveled on everyone regardless, it is a DIRECT tax!
I agree that a flat tax in severe but I think it errors on the side of simplicity and that in can be done because it is simple and we need a common cause to get a change
Interesting how Rand's father Ron was a staunch constitutionalist and stepped aside to give his son a chance at the white house. Now, his son, is putting forth ideas that are anti-constitutional and people are applauding.
Everyone should pay tax based on income and earnings. Rich or poor should all pay the same percentage. If you make $10,000 a year, then you pay 20%, or $2,000. And if you make $1,000,000,000 a year, you should pay the same 20%, or $200,000,000. Corporations should pay at the same rate, and all other taxes should be eliminated. The federal government should keep 3/4 of all the monies collected, and then give the remaining 1/4 back, proportionally, to each state for maintenance and their social programs and education. Done deal.
Sure, the IRS should be abolished and everyone should get a check for what they unconstitutionally paid to the greedy buggars. The Flat Tax is just another form of Direct Tax. Notice the one thing mentioned twice in the 1789 constitution was all Direct taxes shall be apportioned. Which means:
There is one thing that hugely disturbed in this video - praising Putin's supposedly flat tax (the tax, "paid by employers" and others weren't taken into the account). Why not to mention also North Korea? After all, it is the only state in the world that does not levy taxes. Zero! Besides, the author of flat tax in Russia was a former Putin's adviser, libertarian economist Andrey Illarionov (now a senior fellow of the Cato Institute in Washington, DC), who left that position because of disagreements with Putin's KGB regime, and since then became one of the most prominent critiques of that regime.
So many things need to be said here. One, for 99% of people, taxes are unbelievably simple: you use Turbo Tax and it takes 5 minutes. Two, you cannot touch the personal income tax without making corresponding adjustments to corporate, partnership, trust, and other tax codes in order to maintain economic neutrality. Third, macroeconomic tax policy must be influenced by the implications of the backward-bending labour supply curve. Four, taxes are imposed on marginal dollars not overall earnings, so a multi-tiered tax system does little to nothing to affect individuals consumption of labor versus utility. Finally, individuals with income exceeding 2 million make their "income" on investments where there is no labor choice. That is, individuals with an income over 2 milliion will not stop workign becuase they pay more in marginal dollars on their earnings, their behavior is utterly unaffected.
personally I would say I hate a flat income tax, personally I think the income tax is the most evil of the taxes, personally if it was up to me I would say a flat sales tax
I have a better idea...let's reduce the size of government so we can get rid of the income tax and not replace it with anything!! (that worked up until 1913!)
Actually, if we reduce the size of government the jobless rate will go down. You can't think in terms of just the government workers who will be out of a job, you have to look at the economy as a whole. When we all have more money through the removal of taxation, we will all have more to invest in productive enterprises, thus increasing the demand for labor (jobs). It's like putting automation in manufacturing. You may have a loss of manual assembly jobs, but you will have an increase in jobs making, selling, and maintaining the automation devises. So at worst it is only changing the types of jobs available. Plus you will have a gain in productivity that will lead to increased wages and revenues for investing that will in turn create more jobs. If you want to look at those businesses that supply government, here too, some of those jobs will change, but overall the businesses will soon pick up on supplying other productive businesses rather than government so the net effect will only be the change in types of jobs not the jobless rate. In the end, if you have the knowledge to run any size of business, you know that it can not be burdened with too much overhead compared to it's ability to produce things. If it does it will not stay in business for long. Government is overhead...they don't produce anything...only "manage". We have too much overhead in this country and it will not survive if we don't reduce this overhead to what the production can support.
TivertonAudio Excellent point. You are the type of voter and citizen that can protect freedom. You just refuted this guy with sound logic and truth. Why do we live amongst people of this kind? Why not live amongst those who have a concern and respect for logic and freedom?
Bezlichnyy Thanks for your comment. I couldn't agree with you more!
C Warren I agree...except maybe 90% but what's 10% between friends? lol
You are correct in your assessment that cutting the size of government does little to cut the current income tax system so long as we keep spending (borrowing) at the current levels due to this fact that all of the income tax revenues go to just paying the interest on the dept. They have to go hand in hand...reduce the size of government and reduce the spending to a level that is equal or less than what is taken in via taxes...and to a point that allows the ellimination of the income tax (or a flat tax) altogether. I'm glad you brought this up as I would have liked to address this in my original reply to the guy who thought the jobless rate would go up. At that time I was only addressing the jobless rate argument.
C Warren Good job! Between us, I think we did just that....thanks to you bringing it up.
2019, still waiting
But you have my vote
Oh has this not age well. 😳
@@adrianafamilymember6427 y tho?
I hate when people say a flat tax is unfair because the rich need to pay more. If everyone pays the same percentage, how are the rich not paying more
Commoncore mathematics
liams923 idiot. If a poor
Person pays 10 % of
100$ he will pay 10$ tax
If a RICH person pays 10%
On 100 000 $ income
He or she will pay 10 000 $
TAX So RICH people
WILL WILL WILL pay
More tax you idiot
@@jammyjackson2743 Why should rich people pay so much more for exact same service? Why should rich subsidize slackers.
Because stupid people are stupid. They're manipulated by people who want to pay no tax ( corporations. )
+Harshit Madan not everyone can be a winner or filthy rich. Otherwise nobody would be such.
Think about the waste of all of the educated people who go into being accountants. They could be doing something productive, but instead, they just figure out how much you owe the government. Now that is a waste of intellectual capital if I ever saw it.
I agree. Then again the recipients of taxation e.g. welfare clients, politicians, and any other government bureaucrat will not relinquish taxes and regulations because their livelihood depends on it. I don't understand though. Those of us that agree that agree taxes shouldn't exist, why don't we form our own alliance in a U.S State? Instead why do we waste our time talking to people who don't care about their freedom? I think there is enough of freedom minded individuals to form a utopia and tax haven. Form a limited government with function of the military and police functions to protect our rights. Anarchy is not advisable because any irrational individual would use force to accomplish their goals should logic and persuasion fail them through their dishonest efforts.
Matticus Barticus can't argue with a good wage
Yo Mama
ruclips.net/video/JnX-D4kkPOQ/видео.html
There's other kinds of accountants too lol
@@btsnake It is more about the point than writing an expose on the accounting profession.
My ultimate preference is for a fair tax, but I'll just as easily go for the flat tax as proposed by Forbes if it means getting much closer to the desired goal. Certainly better than the current monster that is the tax code.
My ultimate preference would be no tax... Weird, I know!
Maxime Desrosiers Not weird at all.
We already have a flat tax. Everyone pays ~15% of their income up to $100,000 in income per individual. This tax isn't even considered in the income tax and you will never get it back. The flat tax is here and it is higher than the tax "required" to fund the constitutional functions of gov't, yet you still have to pay more taxes on top of this amount.
Describe 'fair'. What is fair to you may not be fair to someone else.
"FAIR"
Fairtax repeals the 16th Ammendment, eliminates the IRS, restores your privacy and right to property and eliminates all taxes but one the sales tax.
Rex Argent As it should be.
nunchaku101 I think you should read the fair tax. Stores already collect taxes. What's difference of the number in the column?
sales tax is still theft, there should be no taxes
@@voluntarism335 Anarchism isn't an option
@@squidlytv Yes it is
If you only contribute to charity for a tax break, you are not being charitable.
As a kid, it was always common sense to me that the only fair tax was a flat tax.
I've never met anyone who enjoyed paying taxes, especially to a congress that has a 7% approval rating.
Jevioso Orishas No, the only fair tax is a sales tax. Then it is mostly voluntary and not forced.
Anthony G.
Actually a sales tax would not be fair and voluntary either because a store is forced to charge that tax for their products.
A store can't just say "You only have to pay what you see on the tag" because they have to charge tax. The government makes them so it isn't voluntary. Plus the customer just wants to pay the store for their product they don't want to pay the government. They're making a transaction with the store not the government but the government wants a slice too so the charge this.
How about either all voluntary tax or no taxes at all?
the less the middle class keeps of their income the worse the economy will be. Its as simple as that
I agree so let's cut their taxes too.
And the deficit will get even bigger
+aarondavid826 no, cut taxes for middle class and rich AND cut government expenditure. the deficit may get smaller
+keyboardmaster95 balanced budget with a surplus
I can go with a flat tax or a consumption tax. I'd rather they just pick one and let's see how it works. If we don't like it, try the other. The current system is a disaster!
Hey Steve, don't be shy, Let's abolish the IRS and the income tax
H.R. 25 would do just that!!
DOWN WITH SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY.
Social-libetarian?
What?
Social democracy is countries like the nordic and other european countries? America is littearly the opposite of a social democracy
700B / year is spent on the IRS, let that sink in
Stossel 2024!
How did our Founders pay for government? Income is not the answer! I think it was duties on imports that paid the lion's share. If the government would follow the limits imposed by the Constitution, it really wouldn't cost all that much. Most of the costs would transfer to the states(10th Amendment). They would decide which programs are affordable. Competition between states would determine which programs succeed and which fail. Successes would be copied and failures would be abandoned...unless you're a lib and desperately cling to proven failures(minimum wage, affirmative action, etc).
Congress has the authority to tax and politicians have the ability earn money without limit. This all within the U.S. Constitution.
That sounds like a good idea. Making the competition between states prevail, and by forcing states to live within their budget. (California and Illinois would be doomed). There are only a few things the federal government should cover including: military expenses, paying back our current debts, etc,...
Flat rate (10-15%)on ALL income. No credits, no deductions. It would be nice to get rid of income tax and go with sales tax, but we would also have to repeal the 16th amendment, or we would end up with both a sales tax and an Income tax
Flat tax is horrible. Certain costs of living such are fixed. Your water, electricity and heating costs don''t change based on your income and we all need these to survive, you also can't eat less then ~2000 calories and not get sick. And if we are talking about sickness, you have to pay the same money to see the doctor too. Flat tax would only be fair if you're taxing non-essential income (everything after basic living expenses).
@@Fankas2000 irrelevant point; costs of living are not fixed (rich pay way more for the cost of living, so should we tax them less since their cost of living is high?) and plenty of people can survive (and even thrive) off less than 2k calories/day; also, medical bills are discounted significantly depending on your income status, to a point that it becomes even free for many people
@@Teigrgwyn "costs of living are not fixed (rich pay way more for the cost of living, so should we tax them less since their cost of living is high?)" I see you din't get my point. Certain life costs are fixed in that you can't survive without them. Case and point, when winter comes YOU NEED CENTRAL HEATING OR YOU START LOSING LIMBS TO FROSTBITE. But you are fine and dandy without an indoors swimming pool.
"plenty of people can survive (and even thrive) off less than 2k calories/day" Yeah and all of them are 5 feet tall midgets living sedentary lifestyles.
"medical bills are discounted significantly depending on your income status, to a point that it becomes even free for many peoples" Maybe in your country thats the situation, but in my country Lithuania (which has a flat tax) certain medications are discounted for the elderly, invalids and very really for students. Everyone else gets to pay full price.
@@Fankas2000 you don't need central heating
i don't know why you'd think people are midgets due to calorie deficits
in the US, medical is discounted for the poor, too, if you actually apply you might get a significantly reduced price
@@Teigrgwyn "you don't need central heating" Electrical heating still costs money...
"I don't know why you'd think people are midgets due to calorie deficits" Because a regular size man will waste away with less then 2000 calories a day.
"in the US, medical is discounted for the poor, too," I was giving my countries example.
Flat tax? Hell no just end the darn federal reserve banking cartel!
How about both?
C Warren
Now, you know it goes to pay more than just that. It goes to pay for all of their outrageous and ever increasing out of control pork barrel projects and slush funds.
C Warren
More like 17 trillion. But I know what you mean.
C Warren
You got to be shitting me?
C Warren
I'm afraid to click on it....
The only fair flat tax is 0%
Get rid of all the codes and institute a flat tax of 15% for Federal and flat sales tax of 10% for State and Local.
Just do a flat tax of 10%
I fully support a flat tax 👍
i don't, i want no taxes
I would like to see a new amendment to the constitution. It would read "All laws must be written at a high school reading level. All potential laws must be completely read by anyone trying to vote it into law before they can cast their vote."
No goverment legislature should ever be more than 5-10 pages long, let alone 75,000
A hidden cost---the complexity of the tax system requires thousands if not millions of man-years be taken out of the national product in the calculations.
Can anyone read Adam Smith? No income tax on wages.
Make USA great again
15% flat income tax + Social Security
15% US manufacturing subsidy
15% US distribution subsidy
15% US logistics / shipping subsidy
Make USA competitive again
plus 15% capital gains tax
The Massachusetts state constitution mandates a flat tax. When a referendum proposed changing to progressive taxation, it was voted down by a good margin.
If the federal government spend 15-16% on non-entitlement spending, and Mitt Romney pays 13-14% tax, someone else makes up the difference (and not the rich). All spending has to be paid for somehow, via current taxation, future taxation, default on T-bill holders, or so forth. Why not just take the spending, divide by GDP or GNP, and everyone pays that.
No matter what you do with the percentages, income is what is being taxed and people of means will always find a way to redefine the money they make so that it is not fully taxed. There is no way to make taxing a population to always be fair and equitable. Why can't the government just run itself like a business. Earn profits.
Tax Exemptions next to regulation exemptions are one of the main reasons wealthy people donate to both political parties and politicians. It would take a revolt of the poor to change the status quo.
What about state and local tax, teachers get 20+% raise, minimum wage goes up 20% and taxes on everything go up in Arizona!!!
100% agree! Flat tax is the best option for the US.
no tax is better
FLAT TAX!
FLAT TAX!
FLAT TAX!
But that will raise the price of essentials unless food, medicine and gas are exempt.
One of the huge negative effects of poor and middle class "needing" to pay for someone to do their taxes is, many many people and families don't realize now they actually get more back than they payed in throughout the year. I'm middle class, but I've done my own taxes so I realize this. If the common person new all these numbers, it would put a whole new spin on the "pay your fair share movement.
A flat tax doesn't protect the big shots from having offshore accounts, and various laundering tactics.
I prefer to eliminate the unconstitutional income tax and use a consumption tax that simply cannot be avoided. The main issue is the poor, who should not be taxed at all. I remember Gary Johnson, while running for President 4 years ago, proposed a yearly rebate check, which solves (somewhat) that problem.
I don't recall if foreign purchases can be taxed in this way though. Could be an issue. I'd hate for people to buy as much foreign product as possible, although would it make up for shipping international shipping fees?
Aiyoo! So complicated. It still sounds better than income tax though.
Escorpion Venenoso more or less
I don't know about that. The consumption tax could be the most regressive tax out there. It disincentivizes spending and would make prices go up which will hurt the economy more than the income tax, I know you already have a sales tax but it is small but if it were the main source of revenue for the government imagine what the democrats would do with it
There would be no reason for an individual to have an offshore account if he were paying fewer taxes.
Khechari
Ahhh I am no where near a "Big Shot". The current tax code does nothing to stop me from saving my hard earned money from the US Racketeers greedy socialist paws.
lee brondum
I agree that is one school of thought. The other is a freedom from paying taxes on money you directly earned. I am considered a cheap skate could have retired at 40 now i am 43 and still run 3 businesses 1 bank and work. It incentivises wiser choices about what to do with your take home pay or profit. Saving needs a boost. All industry as well as I can forecast tax burden into a known future. Tax code is ridiculous and as seen with the Tea Party Scandal the IR$ can and will be used as a tool for no good. Consumption is a quick solution. Flat tax could be a more long term? I am no economist but I know I do not hold the bulk of my liquid assets or any of my businesses here due to Tax codes and I am small potatoes cant even imagibe the big guys.
Founders would plotz if they knew that we would tax wages.
taxies should only come from sales tax
Alex Vandrummer I think taxis only stop for you if you hail them and then you pay them at the end of the ride from your own pocket. If we start using sales tax to pay for taxis I think that would be socialist and destroy the economy. I don’t want my sales tax dollars paying for your damn taxi rides all across town. Please stop spreading communist propaganda delete your account now. Children are on this website and the last thing we need is for the next generation to be influenced by your awful awful Karl Marx ideas of having sales tax pay for your taxi rides.
@@turkenlegoflims actually it makes sense if you make these taxes proprietary like he might be suggesting. ever go fishing?
Sales tax instead of income tax. Its flat tax and less people have to file. The merchants already know their tax burden by the amount they collected. would even allow taxing of borrowed money which isn't now.
And a flat tax, I would prefer to say linear taxation, works even better when you combine it with a negative income tax, the one proposed bij Milton Friedman.
TAXES ONLY LINE THEIR POCKETS
I think that we should do an extremely limited progressive tax, where poor pay 8%, middle pay 10%, and rich pay 12%, that way the lower class can work up, but the people that can work that don’t also pay a 12% tax like the rich, that way they start working, tho if they can’t work they do have some different tax
What’s the status of this tax reform right now?
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, Congress imposed its first personal income tax in 1861. It was part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Congress also enacted the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a 3% tax on incomes above $600, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864. >>This income tax was repealed in 1872.
I'm in favor of at flat tax rate limited to 7.5% at the federal and state level, for a combined rate never to exceed 15%. Anything else is bull shit to me. No deductions, no exemptions, no incentives, and no IRS. We would prosper beyond belief. We would also reduce our debt, and much of the burden created by the funding of unconstitutional government functions that present day government forces the American people to pick up the tab for.
Still have politicians making the determination of what the rate is.
Such common sense but too hard for the govt to corrupt it... :/
Why do we not have a more voluntary tax system? No income tax, no tax on your home. Sales tax, cool, then you truly have freedom and choices. We never truly own our home, after 30 years paying for it then you pay taxes on it until you die. Imagine how much money would be spent into the economy if we had more money to spend.
Get Steve in there. Put his ass in there! Trump needs to appoint a dream team. A few members should be: Steve Forbes, T Boone Pickens, Carl Icahn, Jim Rogers, and Peter Schiff.
People who are profiting off that tax code will never give it up. Those are the ones you need to go after.
They take 20 % out of my weekly check. That is one day a week. No 401k no insurance. I am guessing that is another 20% . they claim you will get your 401 back on retirement. But not always. Up to 2 days pay. Plus sales taxes, rent taxes, utilities taxes, 10 % for charity / church gets 10%. That's another day. We pay around 60% = 3 days pay in taxes I am guessing if you figure the works. Now the bills themselves are another deduction.
S.P.A.M. Tax = Same Percentage Above the Minimum Tax. That's much clearer than "Flat Tax." Also, "Fair Tax" should be referred to by what it really is, a SALES TAX.
Watching in 2017 Forbes called it about taxes being an important issue in 2017
How about abolishing the income tax and the government along with it?
I’m for flat tax! They should just make it 10% for flat tax!!
Federal sales tax will be better. The government will not know how much money one makes and everyone will pay more or less equal share.
my yearly income tax electronic form only took 2 mins to fill up and submit. from south east asia
Music to me hears (the sound of a Tax Code volume hitting the floor). Complexity is a poison.
FLAT TAX WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT. IT'S THEIR BARGAINING CHIP. THEY'LL NEVER GIVE IT UP.
H.R.25 is a flat tax also!!
Get rid of the income tax
Flat tax my eye. After the feds get done you have state, local and property taxes. Every other tax you pay on anything you purchase or utility bills, insurance and all the rest. Flat tax in toto isn't ever going to happen.
replace all income taxes with a fairly concentrated sales tax, this way we don't punish saving and investing, we punish consumerism.
Just having one tax rate is not much of a simplification. The calculation of taxable income rather than applying the rates to that figure is the complex part. The tax code rather than the rate is the source of complexity.
I like the Fair Tax better.
Steve makes a lot of sense. We should move to flat tax.
And leave me destitute
Charity is a tax dodge for the super rich.
Who else would like to see an itemized bill of your taxes?
Also you should only be taxed on your base pay income, not on any additional income from working overtime or receiving a work bonus. Hard work should be rewarded but not stealing a percentage of it. Why would anyone want to work harder to only pay more?
I think at least for businesses there needs to be an experimental flat tax so no business owner will be fearful of being put into a higher tax bracket for hiring more employees and/or expanding the businesses.
A flat tax doesn't have to preclude the ability to have deductions. Deductions can be an important tool in having a carrot with a stick to get the american people to do things.
Less deductions obviously is better because it keeps it simpler and less open to manipulation, but it's hard enough to get flat tax reform to pass without complete gutting the primary tool congress uses to enact fiscal policies.
Yes let's start from scratch, but we can't try to change both the core structure of our tax code and the core method congress uses to influence the economy at the same time.
He should do a segment on the Fair Tax to complement this. Personally, I think the Fair Tax is the better solution since ALL federal taxes are replaced with a single consumption tax at a single rate. Then no IRS!!! And since it's a consumption tax, you don't know when you're paying the taxes anyway. The more you spend, the more you pay in taxes. At least people are talking about simplifying the tax code which is good.
I believe we should eliminate income tax. Set up a sales tax that can only be charged at the retail level (no “value added” tax along the manufacturing and production path). Make sure this tax is added at the cash register, not rolled into the price (like gas tax) so people are well aware of the impact of taxation. This would quickly produce a push to make politicians reduce spending, which is currently a major problem. The amendment allowing income tax only passes because of the “guarantee” that it would never exceed 2% of any person’s income. Of course, that promise came from politicians, so no surprise it was a lie.
I love your hopeful idealism of "we the people" getting upset when "we" see "our" actual taxes and thereby forcing the government to spend less. Mine crashed on the hard rocks of reality a couple of decades ago, and there's no rebuilding that ship. If "we the people" are not furious enough by now, "we" never will be.
The problem is that "we" are no longer "we."
Half this nation believes that it is government's JOB to be Robin Hood: Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Robin Hood gains and expands public popularity (votes) BY ever increasing a budget of "giving." As some economist said, "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul." We're now a nation of Pauls.
We're past the tipping point, which is the point of no return. At this point, there can never be enough real money in the system to dig out fast enough to stay even with the debt, much less pay it off. The "poor" that pay no federal income tax now constitute the majority of this "great" nation. Thus, full-blown "majority faction" (in the words of Hamilton in Federalist 10) has been achieved.
If you're an older guy, the most nightmarish implications will probably occur after you're dead. But your handle includes "dad," so I'll assure you that your children and theirs are in for a "rough ride" that will exceed all historic precedents. And people that raise their kids to support and praise a Robin Hood government deserve every bit of what's coming to them. I would now call it an certainty that financial crisis will result in blood in the streets before there's some sort of "reset." The current status quo cannot be sustained, and the level of "reset" it will take to break the status quo will not happen "nicely" and incrementally. I'm glad that I'm old enough that I probably won't be around for it!
Steve Forbes is right. Even John Stossel is right about the quagmire. Problem is all things human go wrong especially in America where all sorts of factions would find a way to mess it up --- the Flat Tax i.e.
Doubt this will happen anytime soon, makes too much sense
The only fair system of taxation (if you can call taxation fair at all - which you can't) is a usage-based system. Even a flat tax doesn't cut it. Why would someone who uses infrastructure at the same rate as everyone else have to pay more just because they earn more money?
Fairtax FTW!
Income tax should be outlawed
Everyone pays… you want services, you pay, no free rides…
Welfare ppl don't pay taxes but get money back and use all the resources that others pay for
Everyone should pay something
A flat tax that gives breaks for the "poor" & deductions for children IS NOT A FLAT TAX!
It doesn't have to be 10%, that would vary but every dollar brought in whether it is Apple or your grandma, kids or not, business or individual, rich or poor, is the only equitable tax.
Offshore & tariffs should still apply but eliminate non profits, the tax they would pay would be more than offset by the end of fraudulent use of the tax shelter.
Estimate to 1 or 2% and roll any surplus into next years bill, no returns.
The economy didn't grow in the 70's. That was false. American prosperity between 1945-1960 was at a peak. Tax rate was high
The Supreme Court has ruled that a man's labor is all he has to provide for himself in life. Taxes on Labor are direct taxes just like Head taxes, Poll taxes, etc. The problems we have now with an out-of-control Federal government is because they have to much money to play with. Our Founding fathers were well aware of that and restricted its taxing powers just so it would never grow big enuf to threaten the sovereign peoples freedoms.
The income is illegal on its face period. The constitution says capitation (personal taxes) should be apportioned among the states. The taxes that are not to be apportioned among the states are impost and expost (import and export). The flat tax is equally illegal for there is no constitutional authorioty to do so. Free people do not owe taxes on thier labor taxes are paid on gains, corporate taxes. And it should be removed.
But how will politicians be corrupted if they can't grant special advantages to rich people?
I'm not much of a thinkin' man but t'ain't no way that book has 25,000 pages in it.
I think he said that book is one third of it
The Gov wont do it…..they like spending out money too much….
flat tax will not happen. Big Business will have to pay more. Simple they do not want that.
Take the Money congress needs for something and divide it up state by state according to latest census of population in that state. Give the bill to the States and they raise the money how they want. Otherwise, the Feds were given plenty of ways to raise money by Indirect means such as Excise taxes and imposts. Excise means you can avoid the tax by not doing what is taxed. Imposts are import duties on imports. If you can't avoid a tax because it is leveled on everyone regardless, it is a DIRECT tax!
I agree that a flat tax in severe but I think it errors on the side of simplicity and that in can be done because it is simple and we need a common cause to get a change
Steve Forbes knows what the hell he's talking about, but 2017 is not 1908.....
I liked the Jim Jones 2% gross income tax. Every time they mention flat tax, the figure gets bigger.
Interesting how Rand's father Ron was a staunch constitutionalist and stepped aside to give his son a chance at the white house. Now, his son, is putting forth ideas that are anti-constitutional and people are applauding.
Like what?
Everyone should pay tax based on income and earnings. Rich or poor should all pay the same percentage. If you make $10,000 a year, then you pay 20%, or $2,000. And if you make $1,000,000,000 a year, you should pay the same 20%, or $200,000,000. Corporations should pay at the same rate, and all other taxes should be eliminated. The federal government should keep 3/4 of all the monies collected, and then give the remaining 1/4 back, proportionally, to each state for maintenance and their social programs and education.
Done deal.
Sure, the IRS should be abolished and everyone should get a check for what they unconstitutionally paid to the greedy buggars. The Flat Tax is just another form of Direct Tax. Notice the one thing mentioned twice in the 1789 constitution was all Direct taxes shall be apportioned. Which means:
Bad example to mention 13% flat under Putin in Russia. They don't provide as much to their people as we do.
Its Russia, they are never going to help their people like we do.
Bryan Herber in some ways they provide a lot more. Fully free university and healthcare
They sure do a better job controlling their borders and kicking criminals in the nuts!
Who is “we”?
How about no taxes
There is one thing that hugely disturbed in this video - praising Putin's supposedly flat tax (the tax, "paid by employers" and others weren't taken into the account). Why not to mention also North Korea? After all, it is the only state in the world that does not levy taxes. Zero! Besides, the author of flat tax in Russia was a former Putin's adviser, libertarian economist Andrey Illarionov (now a senior fellow of the Cato Institute in Washington, DC), who left that position because of disagreements with Putin's KGB regime, and since then became one of the most prominent critiques of that regime.
State is a gang of thieves writ large.
-Murray Rothbard
Good idea.
So many things need to be said here. One, for 99% of people, taxes are unbelievably simple: you use Turbo Tax and it takes 5 minutes. Two, you cannot touch the personal income tax without making corresponding adjustments to corporate, partnership, trust, and other tax codes in order to maintain economic neutrality. Third, macroeconomic tax policy must be influenced by the implications of the backward-bending labour supply curve. Four, taxes are imposed on marginal dollars not overall earnings, so a multi-tiered tax system does little to nothing to affect individuals consumption of labor versus utility. Finally, individuals with income exceeding 2 million make their "income" on investments where there is no labor choice. That is, individuals with an income over 2 milliion will not stop workign becuase they pay more in marginal dollars on their earnings, their behavior is utterly unaffected.
personally I would say I hate a flat income tax, personally I think the income tax is the most evil of the taxes, personally if it was up to me I would say a flat sales tax