eric76 said:

---

Some years ago (mid to late 1970s, I think), Milton Friedman pushed for the US to switch to a Negative Income Tax to REPLACE the welfare system in this country. He quickly changed his tune when it became clear that Congress wanted to KEEP welfare system and add the Negative the Negative Income Tax on top of it.

So instead of doing something would help to reduce the welfare rolls, we abandoned it in favor of something to keep welfare as it is.

---

I thought his Negative Income Tax idea was brilliant.

But, he was right in realizing that the politicians wouldn't replace welfare with it, they would just ADD it to the existing cluster ****.

You're only a moderate if you don't vote.

Democrats want the welfare state. They know where to send the mail in ballots.

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Some years ago (mid to late 1970s, I think), Milton Friedman pushed for the US to switch to a Negative Income Tax to REPLACE the welfare system in this country. He quickly changed his tune when it became clear that Congress wanted to KEEP welfare system and add the Negative the Negative Income Tax on top of it.

So instead of doing something would help to reduce the welfare rolls, we abandoned it in favor of something to keep welfare as it is.

---

I thought his Negative Income Tax idea was brilliant.

But, he was right in realizing that the politicians wouldn't replace welfare with it, they would just ADD it to the existing cluster ****.

---

Yeah.

The problem with every "replace the income tax with X" is that we would inevitably keep the income tax but have X in addition to that and face higher taxes.

Tom Fox said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

Schneider Electric said:

---

eric76 said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

I am all for a flat tax, but you guys are coming way close to a Libertarian view.

---

Different rates for different incomes. Flat tax would never work. A better solution is a "use tax". Spend more pay more. If I want a BMW and can afford it and the use tax, go for it. With an absolute flat tax, there will still be many not paying anything and some paying too little. Create 2-3 brackets and I think you have a solid point.

---

So you want to bring back the disastrous Luxury Tax passed in 1991?

It was a true disaster then. What makes you think it wouldn't be a true disaster (or worse) the second time around?

---

People that trash flat taxes are just interested in punishing people for being successful because they know they can't achieve the financial success of those they want the government to rob in the name of fairness.

---

Are you ok with deductions? Thats effectively a progressive tax (0% to whatever the "flat" rate is). Curious if you think people should pay income taxes on income used for food, water, clothes, basic housing, etc.

---

Yes. On every single dollar they make. Just like me.

---

Nobody should pay any income taxes. Everything should be fee based as much as possible.

---

I'm fine with that too. But if I am paying taxes every single American should be paying the exact same rate. If that was the case, taxes would be much lower. Instead they are all "eat the rich."

Oh and get ready for the leeches to cry that consumption taxes are regressive.

---

I've come to believe that the ideal fee based tax system would not last. That the left would quickly ignore the goal and purpose of it and *******ize into a system that buys votes by soaking the rich by imposing "rich fees".

So now I've come to think that the federal government should tax entire states based on their population. Then it would be up to the states to tax it's citizens to pay it's overall state bill. That way, if a state soaks the rich, then the rich can just leave for other states. It would create competition in order to maintain a tax base.

Of course, there is still a vulnerability in the federal government simply handing out money to people to buy their votes. I'm still pondering of a good system to avoid that. It seems simple at first, but then I can always think of gotchas for each of them.

---

The system already existed. End universal suffrage. If the ones footing the bill vote to soak themselves, then so be it.

Net takers should not be permitted to vote and everyone should have the same skin in the game.

---

Yep.. thought about that. Obviously, that did not last, and today it wouldn't work anyway as there are plenty of takers that own property. Which was the primary qualification to vote.

So my theory is that if the feds should only tax individual states and states tax individual counties. And counties decide how they collect those taxes from individual taxpayers. Let the best system win. That is a system that makes it nearly impossible for the feds and states to buy votes of individual people.