Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
So, put your thinking caps on and PROPOSE a system that de-fangs the IRS, making it IMPOSSIBLE to harass ordinary citizens, yet, allow revenue collection.

How 'bout a simple form with just 2 questions:

That would be a 23% flat tax which seems reasonable.

In the legislation establishing this, there should be a provision that the percent of tax rate cannot be raised without 70% concurrence in the House and Senate.

No longer would Warren Buffet pay a lower rate than his secretary. Everybody pays the same rate. Period.

24 posted on 06/20/2013 9:58:38 AM PDT by upchuck (To the faceless, jack-booted government bureaucrat who just scanned this post: SCREW YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: upchuck

No deductions?

So, a family making $30,000 a year now pays $6,900 in taxes as opposed to ZERO now?

You’d get opposition from 47% of the country.


28 posted on 06/20/2013 10:00:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: upchuck

I’m with you, as long as we use 0.23 instead of 1.23. ;-)


33 posted on 06/20/2013 10:06:30 AM PDT by Jotmo (Whoever said, "The pen is mightier than the sword." has clearly never been stabbed to death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: upchuck

>>2. What is 1.23 times the amount from question #1?

Make a check for that amount payable to “US Treasury” and mail to...

That would be a 23% flat tax which seems reasonable.<<

You didn’t push the “math check” button...


40 posted on 06/20/2013 10:09:45 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (To attempt to have intercourse with a hornet's nest is a very bad idea)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: upchuck
2. What is 1.23 times the amount from question #1?

Make a check for that amount payable to "US Treasury" and mail to...

That would be a 23% flat tax which seems reasonable.

Er....that's not a 23% flat tax. That's 123% of what you earn.

May I suggest a re-write...???

42 posted on 06/20/2013 10:15:12 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: upchuck
Recheck your math - Obama wouldn't mind that percentage.

:o)

52 posted on 06/20/2013 10:29:33 AM PDT by mykroar (China and Russia are playing chess while Obamas's playing 52 card pick-up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: upchuck
That would be a 23% flat tax which seems reasonable.

Actually if you multiply what you made by 1.23 and write a check for that amount then you're being taxed at 123% of your income. While Obama would like that, I wouldn't. And even the 23% tax you mentioned would be a healthy increase in what I pay the feds now so you have a hard sell ahead of you.

84 posted on 06/20/2013 11:21:51 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: upchuck
Why would you trust Warren Buffett and his small army of tax lawyers to tell the truth?

I don't trust Warren.

114 posted on 06/20/2013 1:50:51 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson