redistribution of income in favour of the mass?
110262
tax the crap out of the working to feed the bums
402925
Nothing at all! This is the best way! Let people do, let people work and live and never bother em again! -income, balance, unbalance etc are always governments creations to make people feel insecure and cotroll em... just think about!
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?
193541
If you start from the idea that in an (albeit unrealistic) "fair" world, everyone would have equal money, then if some people are going to be richer, some people have to be poorer. For some people to have extreme wealth, others must live in extreme poverty.\n\nI don't have a problem with some people have more money than others - some people have better skills, more motivation, more luck, but the gap between poorest and richest is too great and growing all the time.\n\nif this is for a social science project, you should mention Marx, and some more modern Marxists, Socialism, social policies (taxation to achieve redistribution of wealth) etc, all the way through to the New Right
159771
This would be a "regressive" tax which taxed those who are least able to pay in at a higher percentage.\nAttempts to balance this with a "luxury" tax have failed because they unfairly punish certain industries i.e. yacht manufacturers.\n\nIn principle, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax, such as the flat tax, offers the possibility of improving the efficiency, equity, and simplicity of the tax system. But these gains are uncertain and depend critically on the details of the reform. At least some of the gains could be made simply by modifying the existing system.\n\nIdealized consumption taxes may always look better than actual income tax systems. Once in place, though, they would be subject to the same compromises and pressures as the income tax is. They could even lead to a system that is less efficient and less fair than the one we have.
272978
Generally the benefits fall to the taxing authorities. It's a political ploy to garner votes and appear concerned for the "working class". When wages go up, prices go up because demand goes up. Simple Econ 101.  The people who truely don't get it also believe in the lottery, publishers clearinghouse and government aid. They've never heard of Newton's third law. Their best comeback is "you're stupid"
751909
One of the best alternatives to all types of tax is the expenditure tax. Do away with council, income and corporate taxes and have a flat 30% expenditure tax. True, prices will increase in the short term but so will the income and hence we will have a balance. Also, this will mean that immigrants & assylum seekers will also pay the full tax and hence will not run away with using the services without pay anything.
102154
At public universities the thinking was that if you educate the masses, the masses can get higher paying jobs and repay the university through the taxes paid on that higher income which will most likely be higher over the life of the student than of the expenditure while studying. \n\nMany governor's have kept their no-tax raising pledges by raising fees across the state and tuition is one of the biggest losers in that regard.  For them, their children may be more likely to go to a private college so it doens't matter to them whether or not the quality of education is harmed in the process.
291717
No\n\nIt should go by income brackets. Rich should pay more.
322594
Yes, the "Great Society" where income is redistributed to "help" people by making them dependent on the government, and in turn, dependent on Democrats who continue to raise taxes, create new taxes and give it out to others, creating more dependent people insuring that more Democrats will get elected. That's how they held power in the House of Representatives for more than 40 years.
864813
If I understand the Fair Tax proposal correctly, it's essentially a national sales tax, with a rebate to everyone to cover some base amount of tax, which theoretically would protect people below the poverty level from paying the tax.  There seems to be substantial debate on what the rate of this tax would have to be to generate the same net revenue as the current income tax does - I've seen numbers ranging from a low of 23% to over 50%.\n\nThe biggest "pro" that I see is that it taxes the underground economy.  While nobody really knows how big that is, it's huge, and consists of people getting away without paying their share to support he country.\n\nCons: \n\nFor people below the poverty level, they don't pay tax now and wouldn't pay a net tax under Fair Tax, So it would seem that they'd break even to now.  But they'd get their rebate up front each month, then pay the tax throughout the month - how many of these people would invest the rebate, collect interest on it, then have it to pay the higher prices throughout the month?  Or would it be spent right away, then struggle even worse than now the rest of the month to pay the much higher prices for what they buy? But overall, they'd at least break even.\n\nMiddle class:  Since a pretty large percentage of their income is spent on items which would be subject to this new tax, would likely pay more through the year even with the rebate.  And according to the fairtax.org website, residential home purchases would be subject to this tax, pricing many middle class people out of the market for home purchases.\n\nHigh income:  Many people in this situation invest a lot of their income, so don't spend anywhere near all of it, so would make out well under this plan.
387573
I live in Long Island which is one of most heavily taxed parts of the country.  I don't believe we are overtaxed.  Our state is one of the richest in the Union and we have to help out poorer states.   If Alabama was the richest state and we were the poorest Alabama would be taxed more and we would receive more federal aid.  I believe that our tax dollars are not going to the right places a lot of times though.
659699
I would give a big no to this question. As long as our politicians dont create equal oppourtinities for the wide group of population, a tax payer will be forced to share the tax with a big number of non contributing citizens of this country. This means, what he is going to get is only going to be 1 by 100th of what he pays.
54627
You aren't the first to ask. http://www.salestax.org/  \n\nHowever, taxes seem to be more about redistribution of wealth than fairness.
328718
All of your question was mindless dribble, none of what you claim is true. With some education in learning the facts you could have some hope. Redistribution of wealth is easy to check, you must be one of the tax payers earning over $400,000 a year and it was you who got the tax cut at the expense of the working class who have seen higher taxes. Look up the last Minimum wage increase and fine the facts, you will find there is no evidence to support your claim that it adds to higher prices. BTw, when I go all over the country I stay at the Hilton. I also play golf with Republicans every week at the Country club. I am a brick layer, now teach me about the real work you do in life.
393834
The idea of "cutting taxes" or "tax breaks" for the rich is a myth.  The US has increasingly high tax brackets as income increases.  Somone who makes $1M pays a higher rate than someone that makes $25K.  There are several deductions that are available that are considered to be deductions for the rich, such as mortgage deductions, charitable donations, and others that many low income individuals do not incur.  These things lower the marginal tax rate, which is the rate that is paid after deductions.  \n\nA poor person who makes $15K gets is in the 10% bracket.  They still get a standard deduction of $5k if nothing else, so they pay 10% after that, or $1000 (a marginal rate of 6.7%, 3.3% lower than the bracket rate).\n\nA rich person makes $1M, but has deductions of $300K.  He is still in the 38% bracket, and pays that on the remaining $600k ($228K).  Against the million, he is actually only paying 22.8%, which is 15.2% lower than his bracket rate.  \n\nThis is where the "tax breaks for the rich" come in.  His deductions knock his rate down 15%, while the poor guy's gets dropped by only 3%.  What you have to remember, though, is that the rich guy is still paying 16.1% more of his income in taxes than the poor person.  This is why the rich pay something like 95% of the taxes in the country.  \n\nThe argument that you hear from Dems is playing to the poor who don't understand how the tax system works.  This is why a large number of the rich are Republicans - they think it is bad enough that they pay a higher rate than everyone else, but then the Dems say they are getting a break.
200536
There are, of course, multiple answers to this question:\n\nEquitable distribution of wealth.  Those who make more money pay more in taxes.  Taxes fund social programs such as welfare and food stamps.\n\nSustainability of the gov't.  Those bombs we use don't grow off trees!  Neither does the salary of congressmen and women.\n\nUsed as an ultimatum against British colonization:  No taxation without representation!  Self-government and taxes appear to go hand-in-hand.