• A Flat Tax is better than the so-called fair tax. Personally, I favor the Fisher Tax

    July 23, 2010 at 4:59 a.m.

  • In stead of a flat tax a federal sales tax on end purchases (those made at stores by consumers) NOT A VALUE ADDED TAX. Any forced tax on income only taxes 1/2 of the country as the other half don't pay income tax. (s.s , welfare) This kind of tax would apply to everyone not just those who work. This would also eliminate the need of the IRS as all taxes would be paid at the time you buy something.

    Use this kind of tax at all levels of govt and all other taxes would not be needed. We are being taxed into poverty. To those who are interested the average homeowner pays over 60% of their income if you add up all the taxes paid. Just think how many jobs would be created if we could spend that money and all the sales tax that would be collected.

    What Could I buy with 60% more money in my pocket??
    Health insurance, a new garage maybe, And being self employed I could hire employees if I did not have to deal with all the taxes that would entail. (payroll,fica,and many others) If these taxes were eliminated the cost of every thing would also go down. 300 million people paying sales tax compared to 100 million paying everything now.

    Just about every federal agency would become un-needed if the states were allowed to control these things with only the most basic federal involvement to ensure uniformity in all 50 states

    July 22, 2010 at 11:57 p.m.

  • www-great points.

    yes, pay back those under 45 what they've paid in. be it checks or tax deductions (once or over a period of time).

    increase the benefits to those over 45 with any surplus.

    of course ending FICA witholdings for those under 45 would take effect.

    the question is, are the under 45 willing to take full responsibility for their retirements?

    i think some are. those that aren't? well that's where we have to be willing to let them take their lumps.

    America has got to get back into the frame of mind that each individual is fully responsible for themselves. we have generations that have become immune to that.

    i've said it a thousand times. the consumers bear the biggest responsibility for our economic situation. lack of personal restraint and responsibility went out the window. blame the bank for telling someone they could afford a bigger house than they really could? the bank didn't force them to buy the house. blame the credit card company for giving someone $50,000 in spending limits? they didn't force them to use the cards.

    now the government is bailing us out. what kind of message does that send?

    July 22, 2010 at 10:19 p.m.

  • holein1...It's an interesting idea, but ONLY IF the feds also stop withholding FICA payments from their paychecks so they may invest that money as they see fit. Also, what would you do with the money they already have "invested" in Social Security? They contributed for the same reason I did -- they had no choice. Now, they have up to 25 years of payments into the system and you don't want them to collect any of it? That ain't gonna fly. If they're not to receive payments from SS, they MUST be reimbursed for the money they put into the system. That would be a nice kick start to their private retirement fund.

    July 22, 2010 at 9:42 p.m.

  • Abolishing the quasi-governmental Federal Reserve would go a long way toward forcing our hand on which departments should exist. The prospect of needing to raise taxes (versus inflating the money supply) immediately upon the inception of a harebrained scheme would give taxpayers proper indication and politicians motivation for sanity. The IRS would be next to go.

    My shorter answer: If the Constitution doesn't enumerate the power to create an agency/dept, it should be amended to included it or the agency/dept should be disbanded.

    July 22, 2010 at 8:45 p.m.

  • how about we cut SS retirement benefits to anyone under 45 on Jan 1 2015? that will give them 20 years to save for their retirement or come to grips with the fact that they will have to work longer, possibly forever.

    I think one of the biggest issues we have as a country is our inability to take a one for the team. I believe that we've got to make cuts, we've got to end programs, we've got to re-evaluate our spending habits.

    Some people are going to suffer, and that's the issue we have. We don't want anyone to pay the price. I believe that most Americans have it in themselves to overcome any adversity if they are forced to. We just aren't forcing ourselves to deal with the issues.

    July 22, 2010 at 7 p.m.

  • Income tax revenue is about 14% of the adjusted gross income for the entire population. It has varied over the last 30 years from a high of around 16% to a low of about 12% - according to the Tax Foundation.

    July 22, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.

  • 14% of what? How did you come to that figure?

    July 22, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.

  • In terms of income taxes a flat rate of about 14% would cover what we are currently collecting. But there are other federal taxes like payroll, corporate, sales, excise, etc. Income taxes account for only about about 47% of federal revenue.

    But what needs to be done is to cut spending. The government now consumes a huge amount of the nation's economy. In return it provides us with little that we need or want and essentially it pays a lot of people for doing nothing useful.

    Each year this gets worse. Government spending has been increasing at two to three times the rate of inflation - sooner rather than later we are going to hit the end of the chain.

    The current administration does not appear to be concerned about this. They are keeping their foot on the gas to propel us as fast as they can into a full socialist state and maybe something even worse.

    July 22, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.

  • the flat tax idea has been kicked around a lot. what do you think would be a fair rate? would you do away with all federal taxes as a result?

    i watched a show awhile back about the IRS and taxes. interesting point mentioned was that the tax system was originally set up to tax income, which by definition was not monies earned by an individual through service or labor.

    July 22, 2010 at 5:31 p.m.

  • rollinstone...I agree with you -- especially about the Department of Energy. I, too, would like to see the tax code vastly revised. I'd like to see a flat rate, everybody from Bill Gates to me paying the same percentage of our income without exemptions, exceptions or deductions. If nobody gets to duck the taxes they owe, the rate for all can be reduced but everyone would pay the same percentage. It WOULD probably put a lot of CPAs out of business, though, not to mention the infernal revenooers that would have to look for honest employment.

    July 22, 2010 at 8:02 a.m.

  • Writein...Okay, I'll bite. (I know I'm gonna regret this) WHAT about the neo-cons?

    July 22, 2010 at 7:56 a.m.

  • Wind, excellent points and good bets. I raise you Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mae, Export Import Bank, Ag Dept, Energy Dept, Dept of Home Land Security - and so on. I would also call for simplifying our tax code and then getting rid of the IRS. Our tax code is a huge drag on our economy and it is an abomination. It is something only those dumbasses in Congress could think up - every law they pass has some kind of tax revision in it. It's a stupid way to run a country.

    Oh yeah, entitlements they are going to eventually sink us, we are already listing and taking on too much water. I would not be surprised if the fraud in these programs is close to 30% - that is probably a low estimate.

    July 21, 2010 at 11:58 p.m.

  • How about the neo-cons?

    July 21, 2010 at 10:39 p.m.

  • rollinstone...How 'bout we shut down bases in Europe and Japan? World War II ended 65 years ago. Isn't it about time we tell the Europeans and Japanese to look after themselves?

    While we're at it, we could look REAL closely at the foreign aid we send to every hell-hole in the world even though they don't like us. Tell countries that if they want our money, they have to listen to us. Otherwise, let Russia or China send THEIR money to said hell-holes.

    July 21, 2010 at 10:03 p.m.

  • There are air bases that have run out of adequate air space yet Congress keeps them open. There is a little worthless army base in San Francisco that Nancy Pelosi keeps open. Then there is the C-17 that the military says they don't want anymore but Congress won't cut off funds because people in their district will lose their jobs.

    I am sure there is a lot more junk out there not just in the defense dept. These government gravy trains once formed never die it is not like the private sector - the government is using other people's money and they could care less about the waste.

    July 21, 2010 at 8:42 p.m.

  • good start.

    why do you think the bases are not needed and the contractors are making junk?

    July 21, 2010 at 8:33 p.m.

  • Oh, how about shutting down more of those worthless military bases that Congress keeps on life support along with defense contractors making junk they don't need - my mind is ablaze.

    July 21, 2010 at 8:23 p.m.

  • Hmmmm....where to start?

    July 21, 2010 at 8:20 p.m.

  • Let me try this on for size. First, it would get schools back under state and local control where they belong. Second, there are 68.6 billion reasons to abolish the Dept. of Education and each of those reasons has a portrait of George Washington on it. It won't balance the budget or even seriously cut the deficiet, but it's a start.

    July 21, 2010 at 8:12 p.m.

  • Why would do you think we need to abolish it?

    Let's give some reasons behind our ideas.

    July 21, 2010 at 6 p.m.

  • The Federal Department of Education should be #1 on any hit list. Abolish it.

    July 21, 2010 at 3:53 p.m.