E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mitt Romney promised this past weekend that the wealthy would “still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now” and that he’s “not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest.” And: “I'm not looking to reduce the burden paid by the wealthiest.”
He added, “I’m looking to bring tax rates down for everyone.”
That’s what he said on CBS’s Face the Nation, despite the Tax Policy Center’s analysis earlier this year that showed that those making more than $1 million a year would get a $146,000 a year cut from Romney’s plan (by lowering the top rate to 26.6%) – and that the poor would pay more than it currently does (because the base would be broadened).
(Here's the Tax Policy Center's full table laying it out.)
So what’s changed? Nothing, says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, who conducted the original analysis.
The key, Williams says, is Romney’s language. And Romney’s very careful here to say, “pay the same share of the tax burden.”
That means that if his plan cuts the rate for the wealthy, which it does, then he has to make that up with which “tax preferences that he’d get rid of,” Williams said. In other words, the only way the wealthiest would pay the same share is if Romney closes unspecified tax loopholes. And that is where Romney has been vague.
Though he promises to perhaps get rid of certain deductions, he has yet to specify which. When Face the Nation moderator Bob Schieffer pressed Romney, he declined to say what he would do.
“Well, we'll go through that process with Congress,” he said, adding he’d consider certain deductions and exemptions.
Asked what his ideas are now, Romney again cited Simpson-Bowles, the bipartisan commission formed by the president to find a solution that would reduce the nation’s debt and deficits. But he would only say “deductions and exemptions,” and didn’t specify which.
In fact, it would likely be very difficult for Romney to find the deductions necessary to keep the wealthy from paying the same share, because, as Williams points out, there aren’t many “deductions or exemptions” that have an outsized benefit for the rich outside of capital gains, dividends, and exclusions for municipal bond interest.
Things like state and local tax deductions and the popular mortgage-interest deduction discussed in Simpson-Bowles, Williams said, would most benefit the middle- to upper-middle class.
Romney has already said he would not raise the capital gains tax; he would keep it at the current rate of 15 percent for those making more than $200,000 a year. So that’s one lever eliminated to make up the difference.
He has said he would at least “consider taxing some ‘carried interest’ at regular income tax rates,” the New York Times wrote. But it’s not at all clear if he would actually do that, something the private-equity and hedge-fund world would strongly oppose.
“It is really hard to maintain the distribution, maintain the same share of taxes that they are paying now,” Williams said of the wealthy under Romney’s plan.
He also points out that Romney would “extend the Bush tax cuts, but kill the Obama tax cuts,” like the earned-income tax credit expansion, child-care credits, educational tax credits, making them “less generous, less refundable.” And: “The people hit by that almost exclusively are not the rich at all.”
Obama, by contrast, has promised to raise taxes on the rich. “Every budget,” Williams noted, Obama “said he’s going to raise taxes on rich.”
But there wouldn’t be enough revenue generated from the so-called Buffet Rule -- which would tax capital gains, as if it were regular wages – or eliminating oil and gas subsidies, popular with Capitol Hill Democrats, to make a big dent in the nation’s debt and deficits.
So, the choice is: A vague plan from Romney that, of what’s known so far, disproportionately benefits the wealthy and isn’t at all clear that it would raise enough revenue to offset its cost; or Obama’s, which targets the rich, but also would do little to close the nation’s deficits.
Leave a Comment:
Just remember this when you want to know why the gap between rich and poor will go up under Romney, the rich are his best friends and he will take care of them more than the 99% or even 90%....Those top 1% and maybe even 10% have been Double Trickling on us with trickle down Romney-loving economics the last 30 years since Reagan...Double Trickle Down = the rich get to pay less taxes for their income since a lot of that is interest income /capital gains on their investments for the very rich that is majority of their income plus they have off shore accounts to hide a lot of wealth and income from IRS + they get the best investment deals because they have the contacts with the best investment managers/brokers and get special treatment...but now we are Triple Trickled on = Double Tricle Down plus the taxpayer/US Treasury has bailed out the most powerful brokers/bankers/insurers how many times now to the tune of $Trillions...what other nation of middle class and poor gets this Triple Trickle On treatment?
Lets keep it simple: If you are well off by all means vote for Romney. He has your back. If you are struggling Obama is your guy. And right now most people are struggling. Draw your own conclusions.
I would think if you are the top 80 %, voting for Obama is a mistake as far as I can see. His income redistribute policies won't stop with millionaires/.
Don: Please do yourself a favor and get off Fox Noise. The baseless talking points are pretty old.
Then do us all a favor and go to a right wing extremist site to post your ill-informed nonsense. Better yet, perhaps hate radio would better suit you.
Don, that's rhetoric not discussion.
I did not learn these things from Fox. Actually I read extensively and analyze things I feel much more extensively than the majority of posters here,
I understand you probably only want folks that agree with your politics, but I am just trying to show there is more to the issues than you probably will read on these blogs sites.
Better you get a clue upset. Obama doesn't show his true heart anymore. He did when he told joe the plumber we need to spread the wealth. Thne his people got to him and told him never to say anything like that again and he hasn't. He still shows his true colors for those who will just open thier eyes.
Chuck, many think he will stop at millionaires with the wealth distribution idea, but I do not think so. Taxing millionaires only will give us squat.
Don, when Obama said spread the wealth he was speaking metaphorically. You could say that GOP is for wealth redistribution as well, right? GOP redistibuted more wealth to the wealthy via the tax cuts. Obama wants to redistibute the wealth back to where it was.
Mark, the wealthy have not been getting richer as much as you think, overall. They are doing somewhat better than the middle class as jobs disappear because of foreign competition and technology, but since the tech bubble crash, even the rich may not be doing as well as you think.
The wealthy still pay way more % tax than lower brackets and the Bush tax cuts helped bot rich and lower income groups.
The Bush tax cuts have added to the deficit, but not taking money from others.
He spoke from the heart, he was not on guard.
Don, the distribution of wealth is more skewed toward the wealthy than any time since the great depression. Taxes are a big part of that.
It's not the only reason but the tax code is a vehicle for wealth redistribution no matter how you slice it.
Gotta go, nice talking with you.
I enjoy a good debate with you also.
Obama is your man if you are poor??? Really? The best thing to cure poordom is a damned job.
the short answer in "No"
I have never understood how taxing the wealthy at a higher rate will result in lost jobs. So a CEO or other corporate executive pays more in taxes and therefore the company they lead must hire fewer people? His personal net income impacts the bottom line of that company? Because actually, higher taxes don't affect gross income, that would remain the same, meaning no impact on the expenses of the company itself. Again I don't see the relationship.
The need to hire more staff is based on improved sales or an increased demand for a service or whatever. A strong economy means people have more disposable income, or feel secure enough financially, to spend money. Where does an executive net salary play into that? It would seem to me that if anyone was truly concerned about job creation they would be focused on increasing sales, driving up demand, improving consumer confidence, not preserving the lifestyle of the rich.
Also, not all of the wealthy are leaders of industry or direct "job creaters". What about the high salaries of actors or sports figures or musicians? Sandra Bullock made $35 million last year. Her paying more in taxes will negatively impact jobs? Will the movie companies stop making movies because of that her higher tax rate? Will people stop going to the theater? Really, she makes less, and the economy tanks, droves of people will be unemployed? Ultimately what will impact the movie companies more, and in turn their ability to create or keep jobs, Sandra's personal income or that of those who go to see her movies? How would a higher tax rate for these individuals hurt the economy or prevent job growth?
No the wealthy should not be penalized for being successful. But they also should not be rewarded for it or given an unfair advantage. How is it wrong for any group to pay their fair share? And how will the economy improve by lessening the tax burden on the wealthy and raising it for the middle class? Is that not rewarding the rich and punishing the middle class? Where is the proof that tax cuts for the wealthy have created jobs?
If the wealthy, those captains of industry so many people seem to worry so much about, want to create jobs, why don't they cut executive salaries? You want real trickle down, give that shot, use some of that extra money to add jobs or raise salaries across the board. Truly, if the growing the business enough to add jobs, maybe they don't deserve those high salaries to begin with. And why not, instead of paying executives huge payouts when their companies fail and they are ousted, take that money and pay it to the staff who are being laid off? Really, how nice would that be.. We fail you, our employees, and you will be compensated?
Texas Guy
The top 1% already pay 37% of all income taxes paid; how is that not more than fair?
The top 5% pay more than the bottom 95% combined; how is that not more than fair?
In 1980 when the top marginal rate was 70% the top 1% paid 19.6% of the taxes. So with lower rates they pay double the share of taxes then at that higher marginal rate: how is that not more fair?
Furthermore, the wealthy spend a far greater share of GDP on things that create jobs than do those in lower percentiles.
Their purchases of Homes, cars, boats, luxury RV's, restaurants, financial services to name a few create millions of jobs.
Their money in banks including investments, CDs, and money market funds provide the funds that
Banks loan to middle income families.
It's not the poor who are purchasing Government Bonds for Cities, Counties, States, Public Utilities, and the Federal Govt; It is the wealthy who purchase those Bonds.
Yet the bottom 80% only claim 7% of the wealth so there is a much bigger picture to look at.
The the bottom 5% are 27% wealthier than they were 30 years ago. And they still don't have to do crap.
All of politics really needs reform and few politicians offer real conscientious and responsible quality as the “nature of the beast” doesn’t encourage other than self-preservation and an abundance of subterfuge to con the people and to manipulate public opinion. To think otherwise is self-delusional. So then what is the difference in the two parties; is it really “conservative” v “liberal” and what does that mean? The Republicans fault the Democrats as being responsible for “big government”, excessive government spending, liberal aid programs and the growing deficit, while the Democrats criticize the Republicans as being owned and controlled by “big money” and representing only “the few’s” interests with significant neglect and cost to the majority. Actually there is truth in both accusations and remember, there just is no purity anywhere, just self-preservation.
To be fair to the Democrats we have to recognize that they inherited the problems, that in needing to address the severe problems they had to spend more, that some responsible government spending is now absolutely needed and that when giving to the poor (and middle class) the money gets quickly spent and back into the economy (even stimulating profits for the wealthy). Also it isn’t Democratic spending that causes the problems, the truth is that the problems are all related to privileged exploitation by “the few”, where excessive deregulation, lax enforcement, no oversight and favorable policies encouraged run-away greed, gross dishonesty and self-indulgence by “the few” resulting in repeated crisis in savings-and-loans, banks, dot.coms, the mortgage, investment and financial industries, as well as corporate corruption (like Enron) and then including the industrywide failures. To fail to see that or to be conned that it is otherwise just opens the door for continuing with more of the same.
The Democrats really don’t have all of the right answers and they offer a lot of room for improvement, however there are some significant contrasts. We really need to address the deficit but definitely other things first, including some needed spending to get things turned around and really not while only concentrating on “the few’s” interests. A really large and costly problem for the majority is that the Republican / Tea Party is controlled by “the money” and acts as “puppets” for them, depending on their money, power and influence for support and to con the people and manipulate public opinion, while stubbornly fully concentrating on “the few’s” interests. There is no doubt about any of that as it is clearly demonstrated when, without concern for costs to the people, they stubbornly and belligerently concentrate on supporting “the money’s” interests, while faulting and blocking all other efforts and irresponsibly withholding all bipartisan cooperation and any compromise; when Norquist, Cheney, Rove, SuperPacs and others take the mega-millions given and use them to first, intimidate and coerce their own (even forcing “moderates” out) to squelch individual consciences and force unity behind “the money’s” interests, next to sell and support the “puppet” candidates who stand ready to perform as their “strings are pulled”, and last, to aggressively promote the propaganda aimed to con and control the voters; and then just in their insultingly taking people for granted and assuming they can be easily used and abused. A few things should be evident: no matter what anyone thinks of the Democrats’ policies, in contrast to the Republicans they have “moderates” and even “conservatives” who strive to represent the different interests of their constituents; then there was the drastic costs incurred when Bush-Cheney proved beyond any doubt that the “trickle down” theory is a complete fraud just making the wealthy wealthier and soliciting political support; and also there has been the aggressive self-serving manipulation of the conservative Christian, the Swift-boat propaganda and the Tea Party movement, all being implemented, directed and funded to deceptively sway and control people’s thinking.
We need political reform and the only way that will ever occur is to render “big money” ineffective by firmly rejecting their propaganda and their “puppet” politicians. Then and only then will the politicians honestly and responsibly concentrate on the people and be receptive to having real reform.
No one talks about the fair tax. It's one of the best fixes I've ever studied. I don't want the rich to pay more. I want an even playing field. Do away with the stupid loop holes on capital gains taxes. Income is income. Don't penalize success, just make it the same rate across the board.
I don't care if they raise that tax, but it is overblown for politics. Only a few folks benefit from it and in the last 12 years , stock indexes go up and down, but are still below the point when the tech bubble burst.
That would never work. One if the tax rates remained the same or were lower for Everyone, then government revenue and spending would go down; thus as i said before, national defense would weaken, highways would stop being built, government regulation would stop such as FDA, infrastructure would fall apart and other things like that. If tax rates were high and everyone paid the same tax rate the middle class would shrink and would further collapse the economy
Agreed Chuck. We need to repeal the 16th amendment and go to a national sales tax.
The power to tax income has produced all the "corruption" and lobbying that the left complains about.
This MSNBC article, which summarizes where we are now and forecasts the direction Mitt Romney would take the country, makes it transparent that somewhere down the line changes are going to be made, changes that must affect both the wealthy and include all the rest of us as well. So, if it's essential to the success of any plan by either Romney or President Obama that the pain be shared Just how will it be shared; and will Romney's ideas do anything toward solving the problem answers this question:
Since his vaguely worded "solution" seems to be only to give tax breaks to the Rich, a solution which bypasses any discomfort they might feel, in fact adding to their pleasure, while for every one else compounding that pain, it's apparent what he's offering up to the Nation is no solution at all but just more of what has failed us in the past, the same worn out ideas that George W Bush tried before and ended up by putting us in this lingering recession we find ourselves in today! Putting more and more money into the bank vaults of the Wealthy will do nothing to help the Nation recover from this recession!
RBTatt, I would not take any MSNBC article on politics and assume it is unbiased. I think you are making a huge mistake.
NBC "might" have a bias toward the center but any of the news media who will help to take back control of the Congress from those in the top 1%, their lobbiests and other assorted hangerons are doing some real good for America.
Control of the Country needs to be in the hands of the Great Middle Class*, not in those of a very few at the top whose only interest is generating profits for themselves and their investors!
The real strength of any nation lies in it's strong Middle Class. When we see a downward movement of this segment of the population as has been occurring over the past thirty years, we've got ourselves a real problem.
I guess it isn't political correct to make changes to the way Washington spends money. Why not raise the retirement age for the military collection of benefits from 38 to 55? Why not cut 30% of all overseas bases? Why not reduce and combine all 44 poverty programs to one central area? Why not do a complete analysis of the money spend overseas. Not just by the state dept, but all the other depts in the goverment? Lower the tax rate for everyone, but eliminate some deductions. Make all money taxable, including interest, capital gains, and hedge fund profits at the same rate. I realize that our government "WON'T" do anything, no matter who is in office. But it's a nice pipe dream.
Ughhh... Is anyone else getting totally sick of the whole 1040 tax form battle? It's like a big evil chess game. Rook takes pawn, knight corners queen. And all over the board they go trying to out move each other. Sickening.
We shouldn't be turning things into a hate battle over the 1040. We all want a great nation with accountability and revenue and distribution aspects in place that are not lopsided, evil and overly twisted in their methodologies. Both Romney and Obama are irritating me regarding this issue. Both are making it quite clear that they are too one sided to see taxation as an objective and just form of national unity. It's too bad because there's no reason to make the 1040 a hate spear that is dictated by party agendas. Both of these guys have to see that using the 1040 as a platform for balanced giving and taking has to be just that- a platform for balance and unity, not poison and party manifestos that won't lead to future surpluses or national well being. Though I understand there is a lot of heated emotion regarding people's earnings and contributions to the US Treasury, I think that some in party politics have taken the tax form and used it as a very nasty weapon rather than an opportunity to objectively evaluate the way revenues are collected and then redistributed at both the state, corporate and individual levels.
If Romney was smart he wouldn't give these liberal commentators any ammunition to use against him, he would be vague and non-committal until he is elected President. Hmm, I guess that's exactly what he's doing. Obama on the other hand, promises the world and delivers nothing, tells us he's going to "transform" Washington, create transparency, get rid of lobbyists, cut the deficit in half during his first term, keep unemployment below 8% and work across both sides of the aisle. I guess those failed promises aren't the kind of ammunition the media is looking for.
Probably true. They will pull things out of context, twist them around, exaggerate, leave out relevant info .etc. I would not blame him for not saying more than he needs to.
Anyway, we learned from Obama not to pay attention to campaign rhetoric.
There is only one thing you have to think about when you compare who is going to do what regarding taxes, employment, social services, health coverage, education and everything else.... the wealthy (Romney) doesn't want any of us to become better off because that wouldn't be good for his bottom line, he will do anything he can in order to protect his way of life (and his cronies too which gave him so much money to do precisely this), they want what they've got and more, more, more..... Obama comes from another life, another world like most of us in what used to be the middle class so he can understand and relate to the needs of the 99% and knows that there is no way to eliminate social services. He looks to the most secure and advanced countries in the world as examples, like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Brazil, etc. who have vigorous economies, plentiful social programs and better lives for their populations and for this he is call socialist while Romney and his people are looking more into enslaving, destroying and taking over everything without giving people the tools they need to get themselves out of the lower classes to be able to compete on an even playing field. His "stay where you belong.." kind of thinking is not progressive and will cause complete destruction to our society.
How much more do you think people will take once they are without any social safety net to fall back on, no access to education and employment before they raise up against the powers that be? Don't confuse things or you'll soon have a revolution on your hands. Government has to give the services a society needs and must offer a way for the lower classes to join the ranks of the working class through education or training. The country must again produce "quality goods" that the masses can purchase, not just on a global market but a domestic one as well and there must be employment so they population can sustain families and make the money circulate so that all levels of the population can benefit.
Slave wages, no benefits, no social programs (i.e health coverage, education assistance, etc.) will only bring a further erosion to our country. Or do you think that waging wars against everyone will keep this country profitable? There is a limit to what people can take and they are getting very near it.
What I don't understand is this. Okay... the rich get tax breaks. BUT... the alledged REASON for these tax breaks is because they are supposed to be funding businesses and CREATING JOBS. But the problem right NOW is that they are NOT. And they HAVEN'T been for going on 6 years now. But here's the issue at hand. Even though the economy clearly hasn't recovered WALL STREET HAS! Which is where these "rich" people make a good part of their money. However... none of these tax breaks SEEM to stipulate job creating or really pretty much ANYTHING in return! So why doesn't someone just say... you know what... you can keep your tax breaks... IF you start investing in mainstreet instead of Wall Street. Because otherwise... no matter how you look at it... "trickle down" is broken if you look at it from a GOP point of view... and the greedy ba$t#rds are just keeping all of their profits from a Democrat point of view...
Sid, there are a lot of reasons for the jobs situation. Taxes are by no means the only variable.
Also there are both "trickle down " and "trickle up" policies in play in our country. To assume we have only a trickle down policy is mistaken.
The wealthy still pay way more % effective taxes than others according to IRS data.
And I agree... it's ridiculous how this has become so complicated. And a BIG part of the problem isn't how the rich are taxed... but how the invest too... now that I think about it... and it isn't really getting talked about because at first it seems preposterous... but it makes sense if you really consider it. The reason the economy isn't really recovering... is because the consumer is no longer the primary source of income. How is that possible you ask? Because the recession has taught the rich that they don't need us. They simply just flip their money in stocks... and not just local stock exchanges. That's why everything is going to hell when the government says "no more free money"... because THAT seems to now be their primary source of income...You see... the stocks COULD go to hell again... but the way things are going... it probably would help US because it would bring prices down... but screw THEM because their system would be broken... and they would be FORCED to start hiring again and grow their business to make money the way they are SUPPOSED TO!!! But I could just be crazy... but I try to see the big picture... because no matter how improbable... once you eliminate the impossible... what remains must be true.
NO Romney is as crooked if not more so than obama, I wil vote for anyone not of these two idiots. I dont care if it is some guy in prison for murder at least he is serving his time for his crime our is president and has removed all rights to Americans under the constitution so he can kill them at will? WHy is the world court not up in arms about this? I think there will come a day when we will see one of our Control freak presidents charged with war crimes bush performed many war crimes but the world court hasn't the nerve to charge us YET!
Obama give back your peace prize you do not deserve it!
Romney doesn't want to give any specifics on anything he has planned and he expects to convince people to vote for him? Just think about it, would you buy a _______— (enter: house, car, tv, whatever......) WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE ARE? Would you? We all know what the fine print can contain, right? (remember Columbia House when you were really young? we learned from that, right?)
So, would you put someone in charge of your future that has NO idea what you need, want.... and has proven himself to be 100% for the wealthy, who is interested in increasing his own wealth (and that of the people that have given him millions upon millions of dollars) by any means possible?
Do you think that the billionaires that have given Romney all that money want a president for "all of the people"? NO, they want someone for THEM, someone who will see to their interests (shared with him) and someone who sees life as they do, right? Are you one of them? If you aren't, then Romney has nothing for you and is working against your interests. Is this what you are going to vote for? Someone who is against you? It's just not logical..... think about it.
Obviously you Democrats don't know a thing about running a business. You think "Wall Street" and "Main Street" are two different places. "Main Street" is full of small business's, in fact 80% of corporations employ less than 100 people. The "wealthy" are mom and pop's all over this country that started with nothing and built a business. They also happen to pay over 70% of our Federal tax burden and so don't bite the hand that feeds you, demand that Washington quit spending money on programs that clearly aren't working. The problem is our Federal government not your local restaurant or hardware store and certainly not "Wall street".
That is what many folks do not understand. They read about the huge bonuses a few CEO's of very large corporation's get and do not realize most job growth will need to come from small business. If we do not have a business friendly environment, that will not happen.
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffett. And we can add that there are enough Middle and Lower income fools that are helping them continue to win.
It's only smoke and mirrors because Al Sharpton says so. Go read his plan. Learn it and then be specific with what you don't agree with. But just saying his plan isn't out there is a lie. it's on the web for everyone to see.
I think you all just think it's funner being dumber.
if mitt could have the rich pay nothing he would wave his wand and make it so... gop likes big gov and no paying for it... maintain the military welfare state
Well 50% of "Tax Payers" pay nothing. So what's the matter with the other half paying nothing? Americans wouldn't have to pay crap if we taxed our resources and imports. We could be tax free if our leaders had the savy to tax imports instead of the people. Federal taxes were created just last century. We don't need them AT ALL!
Finally, teapublicans have put their collective finger on the problem...
Rich people don't have enough..
""That’s what he (romney) said on CBS’s Face the Nation, despite the Tax Policy Center’s analysis earlier this year that showed that those making more than $1 million a year would get a $146,000 a year cut from Romney’s plan (by lowering the top rate to 26.6%) – and that the poor would pay more than it currently does (because the base would be broadened).""
Apparently the poor have too much and the rich don't have enough.
Odd.
Life is like a crap sandwich...those that have more bread don't have to eat as much crap.
Tax the 1% to the level that Obama says so. It's only 40 billion. That is a fart in outerspace that is only 8 hours of intrest on our DEBT. The only way to cure the problems is to increase tarriffs and make MASSIVE cuts.
Austerity programs do not work. It sounds good on paper, but the implementation is disasterous for every economy that has tried it.
Investing in people ( education ) and infrastructure pays off in the long and short term.
Notice the term "CURE"
Who in their right mind would reduce or cut programs for the poor to give the wealthiest another huge tax break?
Must be Christians!
Buy one of those new fanggled devices called a calculator.
Sadly DionysusOmega, those at the top believe they no longer need to pay the cost of educating an American work force. They can import all the math, science, engineering grads they need to fill these jobs. The result of this thinking can be seen in the growing influx of immigrants coming from India and China to fill these jobs.
STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). Only 18 percent of students receiving bachelor's degrees at the state universities are in the area of STEM. the other 82%? Wasting their time and usually OUR money on liberal arts is a joke. They would be better off working 4 years for a plumber or carpenter. You could wipe your butt with 60% of the degrees handed out these days.
OK, let the abuse begin. The only plan where we all pay the same % in taxes is a true flat rate. If a dollar passes through your hands then a certain percentage goes to taxes, no write-offs, no deductions, nothing!! No matter whether you're rich, poor, underemployed, etc., but if the gov't ever did that then we would all be equal and united, and we wouldn't be in-fighting with class warfare. We wouldn't need all the bodies at the IRS, because most of us would never file a return, the IRS would be paid through payroll deductions. We wouldn't need H&R Block, CPAs, or tax accountants/lawyers any more, not to mention the unemployed at the IRS. Only the self employed would need these services. Now that we're all equally paying "our fair share" what then? We all start looking over the politicians shoulder at how they're spending "our" money, and pissing it away. Before long, we're in the streets, shoulder to shoulder, "rich" and "poor", screaming, shouting, and protesting about the waste of "our" money!! That's why the gov't will never allow it and keep the class warfare and in-fighting going on, because if we ever united together, we wouldn't allow them to PI$$ "our" dollars away!!!
Let the abuse begin (end)!! It's all your (our) choice.
Bravo! Every man should be created equal. If you take the current tax code out of washington you could also fire 100,000 lobbiests. This is why Herman Cain's idea of 999 was great but had no way of passing through Dems or Republicans.
I agree that the only true FAIR tax system is flat rate and NO deductions. It would level the playing field and no one could complain and whine without sounding stupid.