@windinhishair I will take the advice on trees.

I don't know where your numbers come from but the reality for me is that I make a little over $100K, my wife makes a litte over $50K, we file jointly, and after a standard deduction, we pay a little less than 25% of our total income. I have been to tax professionals, accountants, and tried every program out there. The end result is I pay 28% on what I make and we pay 28% on what my wife makes even though she is below $74.5K.

Concerning a flat tax, while it would be the most fair, it would really hurt the lowest wage earners, especially those with children. Someone paying $2000 and getting a portion of that back and then getting an additional $5000 or $6000 in EIC, effectively paying no income tax because they get back more than they pay in as a refund.

I disagree with income tax as a whole. Prior to WW1, almost all of the governments revenue was from Import and Export Tariffs. The income tax was presented as a way to pay off the debt of the first war. Once the politicians got their hands into our wallets, they just never took them out. We do take a beating on trade because we can't compete with workers that will work for pennies an hour while we are paying artificially inflated wages.

I do not think I am any smarter than the average guy doing what I do, but I have worked harder to be where I am than the guy who doesn't want the added responsibility of taking a promotion or a new position. Anyone could do what I did to get better. I started out poor, looked at what was available and picked a direction.

Because of EIC, a great many of the lower wage earners pay no taxes, and those who do pay very little compared to more wealthy tax payers. So the guy making a million dollars a year, even if he hides some of that money, is contributing a larger portion to the kitty than numerous low wage earners combined. History has proven that cutting taxes works, it worked for Reagan, it has worked for Trump, and it worked for Kennedy after his death, Johnson actually put Kennedys plan into effect in 1964. The economy improved until the 70s and then Reagan cut rates and the 80s and 90s were booming until Obama, the tail end of Bush if you prefer, Trumps minor cut has had the same effect.

Kennedy cut the top rate from 91% to 65%. In what world is someone getting taxed 90% of their earnings the right thing to do?

@Roadsterrider If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you are not paying 28% on your total income. You are paying a marginal rate of 28% on earnings over $74,500. Check the tax tables--they explain this pretty clearly. So during Kennedy's presidency, no one was paying 90% of their entire income. It just doesn't work that way and never has. That's why we have tax brackets.

Tax cuts are a sugar high, but don't work in the long run if revenues don't keep up with expenditures. Trump is a great example. We were finally getting the deficit down, to around $500 billion, but the current deficit under Trump is $982. Essentially his tax cut was borrowed from our children and grandchildren. That isn't a fiscally sound way to run a government. The same thing happened under Reagan. Most people don't realize that Reagan's smallest deficit was larger than Carter's largest. And yet people think of Reagan as a fiscal conservative. His actions were directly counter to that.

You could eliminate the income tax if you had a huge value added tax, but that would create a huge black market and underground economy. I think we are stuck with income tax in our current economic system, though it could be vastly improved by going to a flat tax or increasing marginal tax rates on the wealthy. I suspect the latter is where we will end up. The key to a strong economy that is sustainable is a strong middle class. We've gone in the opposite direction the past 50 years to create a super-wealthy class and a huge subclass, with very little in the middle. This is a big reason why we end up with politicians like Trump, who promise improvement but can't deliver. The whole system is flawed.

@windinhishair I agree the system is flawed, again, the flat while being the most fair would also hit the lower wage earners and those getting EIC the hardest. I guess in my dream world we would cut spending to a reasonable level and go back to collecting import and export tariffs to fund the government as was the practice before WW1.

@WalksWith True. That would be my assumption, but even if they don't respond, it should be food for thought for everyone. I couldn't support that scenario under a Democratic leadership any more than I support it now.

@whowasthatmaskedman Indeed. And people should note that the nation flourished with a strong middle class when the top marginal rate ranged from 50% to 90%.

@windinhishair How many days a week should an American work to fund the government?

@Strictgram Depends on your income and your tax bracket. It will very for each individual, just as benefits will vary for each individual. The nation has been strongest when it had the biggest middle class and disposable income. The US has pushed more of the income to the top 1 or 2%, and the nation has suffered as a result, along with average people.

@bijouxbroussard Yes, they would, and I wouldn't put violence past them.

[image deleted]@Budwick

@windinhishair What's that called?
You know, when you take a sentence or phrase and turn it around, add shit never intended?
Is there a word for it?

Oh yeah - lying!

@Budwick Exactly. Finally you are starting to realize what Trump has been doing. Took you long enough.

[image deleted]@MarmeeMarch

@SW-User Not on this site !! If I want to read a book I'll Buy one

Yup@MarmeeMarch