From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"
I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...
It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is, Indeed!!
I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't be ways to so
so. But ...
Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear to
be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay gets
cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax was cut,
but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare and in
addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has refused to
pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension funds).
Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a higher
rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person pay
$0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15 of
every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of anything
but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being fair to
I don't believe there is a single "flat tax" person advocating that we
should add up all the tax revenue, divide by the number of tax payers,
and make everyone pay that amount. Looking up total federal income tax
Number of individual returns filed
1,000,000,000,000 / 130,000,000 = 1,000,000/ 130 = $7,692
Now how are we going to get that amount from the roughly half of all
filers who now do NOT owe income taxes? Or better, where would they get
that money from?
I really think (and the "socialist" in me agrees) that paying taxes
should be in relation to your ability to contribute. If the income
distribution in the US was much, much more flat, a flat tax (in % of
income, not a set amount) would be defensible, but it isn't.
Before we get to the flat tax, let's eliminate the tax loopholes, and we
should first discuss whether charitable contributions, mortgage interest,
state & local taxes should be deductible. After all that's what brought
my income taxes down to less than 14% of AGI.
You seem to misunderstand what a flat tax is. It is not the countries
expenses divided by population, it is everyone paying the same
percentage of their income (from all sources). You make more, you pay
more, simple as that, but nobody pays a greater percentage than anyone
else. Everyone agrees that there would be a cutoff at about the poverty
With a flat tax everyone pays there fair share, regardless of income
distribution. Everyone, regardless of wealth (except those under the
poverty line) pay the same percentage, so for example you make $100 you
pay $20 or you make $100M you pay $20M, absolutely fair.
A flat tax (done properly) eliminates all tax loopholes since there are
no deductions and no differentiation between sources of income. Make it
working at McD's of from investments and pay the same flat tax
From what you said and I snipped, a flat tax is almost the same as what we
have now, except there are no loopholes or deductions And, if you have a
"poverty" cutoff, then in essence you have a graduated, progressive tax
structure - income more than $XX.XX requires a higher tax (unequal to
zero). Having a few more graduations wouldn't be bad, then, IMO.
As intimated, I agree about getting rid of loopholes.
To be clear, I firmly believe the person at the McD grill, Bill Gates
and myself should all be paying the same percentage of our income in
taxes. This of course means Bill will pay the most in $, the McD guy the
least and I will be in the middle somewhere.
To have 2 scales, a zero scale for the real poor, and a uniform scale for
everyone else is philosophically the same as having multiple, progressive
scales. Flat taxers shoul first focus on getting rid of loopholes.
I heard on the news today that Mitt Romney paid about $3 million in federal
taxes on an AGI of $45 million, about a 6.7% rate. I don't even make a 6
figure income and my rate was about 7.5%. Maybe a flat tax would be better.
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
are you going to separate income from investment earnings(capital gains)?
that will have a negative effect on the economy,as less money wil be
avaialble for investment.
Look at Warrent Buffet;he gets a tiny salary,but most of his wealth is held
by corporations and foundations,same for Bill Gates.
Thus,their taxes are low,because most of their wealth is sheltered.
But their "needs" are provided by their corporations.
How about the family farm? right now,the inheritance tax forces people to
sell their property to meet the tax,despite taxes having already been paid
on that wealth.Double taxation.
Inheritance taxes are put in place, and rather blantantly if you listen
to the people pushing them, solely to punish those who make so much
money that they offend the pushers. Inheritances should be taxed by what
they are. If business, then the inheritors pay the cap gains tax just
like they would have if they had bought it (and get the stepped up
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:45:20 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
Corporations don't shield an estate from estate taxes. Before the corporation
changes hands, at death, they are taxed. An irrevocable trust can change
hands without taxes but it has actually changed hands before the death of the
if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than the
normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a corporation
dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.