Do you think taxes will increase to pay for the nation's debt?

[Anonymous]

A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a minimum we should stop cutting taxes for billionaires.

I am in favor of abolishing loopholes. However, that alone is insufficient.

More people need to pay more tax. The progressive nature of our tax system means most of the population is subsidized by a tiny fraction of more productive and more successful taxpayers.

The average income tax rate in 2022 was 14.5 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 23.1 percent average rate, six times higher than the 3.7 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.

How is punishing success even remotely "fair"? A flat tax is fair. No deductions, no credits, no use of the tax code to reward or discourage specific taxpayers behaviors, just a mechanism to collect enough money to pay for essential government services, with no ulterior social or political purposes.

It’s really not “fair.” 5% of 50000 would be felt vastly more than 20% of 500000

This is an emotional response, not a logical or mathematical one. You don’t seem to want lifestyle to scale in a linear way. People who choose to only earn 50000 need to learn to live within those means instead of relying on tax breaks to spread their dollars farther.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

Too regressive.

Maybe over a certain threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal Debt to Hit Record Levels, Budget Office Warns

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/business/federal-debt-record-levels-budget-office.html
The country is still on track to borrow what economists consider an alarming amount of money in the coming years. But the situation, on paper at least, has gotten only somewhat worse, but not significantly, under Mr. Trump’s unorthodox policy mix.

Those were the findings of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper, in its annual benchmark forecast for the federal budget released on Wednesday. Compared with its projections from January 2025, before Mr. Trump took office, the federal government is now expected to run a $23.1 trillion shortfall over the next nine years, rather than a $21.8 trillion one, a $1.4 trillion wider gap.

The C.B.O. said that the amount of debt held by the public is expected to become much larger than the annual output of the economy, reaching 120 percent of gross domestic product in 2036. That would surpass levels reached in the aftermath of World War II and put the world’s most important economy at risk of a destabilizing debt crisis.

So much for fiscal responsibility of republicans…

It was yet another lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad every single person on this forum will do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes, but simultaneously complain that the ultra wealthy dont pay enough.

This is massively evident by the extreme TDS mixed with posts on tax planning strategies. The hypocrisy is unreal.

I don’t like paying taxes as much as the next guy, but when you have teachers with similar tax rates as billionaires, you know there’s a problem.

A successful doctor that makes 500k a year shouldn’t have a higher tax rate than Jeff Bezos.

You get my point?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

Too regressive.

Maybe over a certain threshold.

Yes, make the first $X exempt, then tax everything past that at the same percent, for everyone. Maybe 15 or 20% though, 25% is too severe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad every single person on this forum will do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes, but simultaneously complain that the ultra wealthy dont pay enough.

This is massively evident by the extreme TDS mixed with posts on tax planning strategies. The hypocrisy is unreal.

I don’t like paying taxes as much as the next guy, but when you have teachers with similar tax rates as billionaires, you know there’s a problem.

A successful doctor that makes 500k a year shouldn’t have a higher tax rate than Jeff Bezos.

You get my point?

This post shows you dont have a clue how income taxes work or how wealth works. Most billionaires are not earning millions per year in wages, and they arent realizing capital gains. They are billionaires on paper only. They own assets and businesses worth over a billion and they are putting it all at risk by staying invested and not cashing out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad every single person on this forum will do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes, but simultaneously complain that the ultra wealthy dont pay enough.

This is massively evident by the extreme TDS mixed with posts on tax planning strategies. The hypocrisy is unreal.

I don’t like paying taxes as much as the next guy, but when you have teachers with similar tax rates as billionaires, you know there’s a problem.

A successful doctor that makes 500k a year shouldn’t have a higher tax rate than Jeff Bezos.

You get my point?

No. Billionaires pay more in taxes than do teachers, obviously, even after credits and deductions which distort the tax system to try to achieve social goals unrelated to the generation of revenue for the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

Too regressive.

Maybe over a certain threshold.

Not regressive, but fair.

The current system allows most of the population to have a free ride on the backs of the rest.

"as a share of adjusted gross income (AGI), the top half of income earners paid 97.1 percent of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.4 percent of total income and paid 40.4 percent of all the income taxes. The top 10 percent earned 49.4 percent of the income and paid 72 percent of the income tax." https://www.cato.org/blog/its-tax-season-five-charts-who-pays-whats-risk

40% of households pay no federal income tax at all. https://taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-facts/who-will-pay-no-federal-individual-income-tax-2025

Fairness requires everyone to contribute in proportion to their income, neither rewarded for low earnings nor punished for high earnings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

Too regressive.

Maybe over a certain threshold.

Not regressive, but fair.

The current system allows most of the population to have a free ride on the backs of the rest.

"as a share of adjusted gross income (AGI), the top half of income earners paid 97.1 percent of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.4 percent of total income and paid 40.4 percent of all the income taxes. The top 10 percent earned 49.4 percent of the income and paid 72 percent of the income tax." https://www.cato.org/blog/its-tax-season-five-charts-who-pays-whats-risk

40% of households pay no federal income tax at all. https://taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-facts/who-will-pay-no-federal-individual-income-tax-2025

Fairness requires everyone to contribute in proportion to their income, neither rewarded for low earnings nor punished for high earnings.

I dont think the lower wage earners should be paying more taxes. I also dont think we should be sticking it all on the highest wage earners either. I think we should change the laws on how certain things are taxed though.

First example, it is not in any way fair to allow 15 million in assets to be handed over to heirs tax free. They have not earned that wealth, no reason it shouldn't be subject to taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

Too regressive.

Maybe over a certain threshold.

Not regressive, but fair.

The current system allows most of the population to have a free ride on the backs of the rest.

"as a share of adjusted gross income (AGI), the top half of income earners paid 97.1 percent of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.4 percent of total income and paid 40.4 percent of all the income taxes. The top 10 percent earned 49.4 percent of the income and paid 72 percent of the income tax." https://www.cato.org/blog/its-tax-season-five-charts-who-pays-whats-risk

40% of households pay no federal income tax at all. https://taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-facts/who-will-pay-no-federal-individual-income-tax-2025

Fairness requires everyone to contribute in proportion to their income, neither rewarded for low earnings nor punished for high earnings.

I dont think the lower wage earners should be paying more taxes. I also dont think we should be sticking it all on the highest wage earners either. I think we should change the laws on how certain things are taxed though.

First example, it is not in any way fair to allow 15 million in assets to be handed over to heirs tax free. They have not earned that wealth, no reason it shouldn't be subject to taxes.

Why should the government confiscate it instead of it remaining in the family? There is no moral or ethical basis for that position. The government didn't earn it. It would also encourage wealthy people to simply spend and/or conceal their wealth abroad before death, not to conserve it or invest it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

Too regressive.

Maybe over a certain threshold.

Not regressive, but fair.

The current system allows most of the population to have a free ride on the backs of the rest.

"as a share of adjusted gross income (AGI), the top half of income earners paid 97.1 percent of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.4 percent of total income and paid 40.4 percent of all the income taxes. The top 10 percent earned 49.4 percent of the income and paid 72 percent of the income tax." https://www.cato.org/blog/its-tax-season-five-charts-who-pays-whats-risk

40% of households pay no federal income tax at all. https://taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-facts/who-will-pay-no-federal-individual-income-tax-2025

Fairness requires everyone to contribute in proportion to their income, neither rewarded for low earnings nor punished for high earnings.

I dont think the lower wage earners should be paying more taxes. I also dont think we should be sticking it all on the highest wage earners either. I think we should change the laws on how certain things are taxed though.

First example, it is not in any way fair to allow 15 million in assets to be handed over to heirs tax free. They have not earned that wealth, no reason it shouldn't be subject to taxes.

Why should the government confiscate it instead of it remaining in the family? There is no moral or ethical basis for that position. The government didn't earn it. It would also encourage wealthy people to simply spend and/or conceal their wealth abroad before death, not to conserve it or invest it.

It's better than taxing people who can barely make their monthly rent. Its the lesser of the two evils.

Plus i think the person who actually took risks and/or worked for the money deserves it way more than their heir does.

This is if we have to raise taxes, not something i would recommend if we had adequate government revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A flat income tax would solve the problem. Everyone pays 25%. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes, no anything. Disadvantaged groups already make out on the receiving end, so things are still skewed to helping those in need. Easy peasy.

Too regressive.

Maybe over a certain threshold.

Not regressive, but fair.

The current system allows most of the population to have a free ride on the backs of the rest.

"as a share of adjusted gross income (AGI), the top half of income earners paid 97.1 percent of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.4 percent of total income and paid 40.4 percent of all the income taxes. The top 10 percent earned 49.4 percent of the income and paid 72 percent of the income tax." https://www.cato.org/blog/its-tax-season-five-charts-who-pays-whats-risk

40% of households pay no federal income tax at all. https://taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-facts/who-will-pay-no-federal-individual-income-tax-2025

Fairness requires everyone to contribute in proportion to their income, neither rewarded for low earnings nor punished for high earnings.

I dont think the lower wage earners should be paying more taxes. I also dont think we should be sticking it all on the highest wage earners either. I think we should change the laws on how certain things are taxed though.

First example, it is not in any way fair to allow 15 million in assets to be handed over to heirs tax free. They have not earned that wealth, no reason it shouldn't be subject to taxes.

A lot of that money is already after tax though, unless you are only talking about eliminating the step up basis.

[Anonymous]

The middle class will suffer the most. I know it's cool to blame them for not saving for their kids college because it's so easy. OMG it's so easy to save for college, for emergency, for retirement.

Interest rates will go through the roof and their kids simply won't be able to borrow to further their education.

Bravo they will serve food to our kids.

[Anonymous]

I think we will have to spend more for our security. If our parents never feared for their lives or their assets being forcebly stolen/taken, our grandkids may have to worry about that. Solving the debt crisis means increasing poverty.

It will be interesting to see how White people will behave once poverty starts hitting them harder and harder.