For what it's worth, the LDS church asks for a flat 10% tithe from all it's members regardless of the amount of income they have and it's doing pretty darn well financially speaking. That doesn't include donations made for humanitarian purposes or donations of other kinds. The 10% goes towards building buildings, paying utilities and providing a budget for each congregation to use for activities for the different auxiliary groups like the youth groups and the women's groups. It also goes toward subsidizing tuition at the different BYU schools and several other things. So I'm all for a reasonable flat tax percentage without deductions, but I'm not sure what percentage would yield the amount that's necessary though.
Whatever the tax rate is, it won't be enough because our elected officials will want to spend more and expect us to pay for it.
I agree with this sentiment. I neglected to include in my post that I think government spending is out of control. I don't understand why it's so difficult to have a balanced budget, or at least a nearly balanced budget. I'm even ok if there's a rainy day fund at the end of the fiscal year as long as the funds are returned to the public. Absent some emergency, I fail to see why each organization within the government can't give a reasonable estimate of what their expenses are and are projected to be and adjust accordingly. Companies have to make these kinds of projections all the time. I realize it's not an exact science, but federal spending is completely backwards right now. Instead of determining the funding of programs based on the expected amount of tax collection, the programs say they need to spend "x" amount regardless of what's coming in and just run a deficit or print more money to cover the difference.
Interesting that not a single person is willing to pay as high of an overall percentage as they want others to pay (>40%).
Are you really willing to pay up to 100% of your income every year? Assuming that the government efficiency remains roughly constant.
I didn't see where it said anything about government efficiency. Obviously if you change the entire structure of society (which 100% tax rate would certainly do) then everything gets thrown out the window. barfo
There wasn't any mention of the efficiency. Do you think efficiency would get better if you were paying 100% tax rate?
anyone who hasnt responded to the poll yet and is asking others what their percentage would be is a complete fuddy duddy
It seems to me that the poll is asking the wrong question. It isn't really valid to ask what your fair share is without discussing "share of what?" The better question to start with, IMHO, is what percentage of GDP should be allocated to government expenditures? If the federal budget were in the billions instead of trillions, there wouldn't be a need to be talking about upper brackets in the 40% range. The basic problem is we're spending too damned much, not taxing enough to cover it, and mortgaging our kids' futures by borrowing the difference.
"Yeah," Romney said in an interview aired on Sunday on the CBS television show "60 Minutes," when he was asked if he thought his relatively low rate was fair.
I'm curious... What do you think is a "fair" rate for Romney to pay, and what is a "fair" rate for you to pay?
I'll gladly take Romeny's 14% . . . or Obama's 20%. Heck make us all pay 25% and I'll buy them both drinks for their extra contributuins.
I believe the CG tax is way too low and has created a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When I hear Romney made 14 million and only pays 14% taxes . . . and that 14% is only because he is running for presidency so decided not to take the charitable deduction otherwise it would have been an even lower percentage, then I beleive there is something wrong with our tax system. So while I don't believe in a flat tax, I do believe our current tax structure is already easy enough on millionaires and billionaires and that some changes in the tax laws should happen.
