I have almost completely lost you. Where is this estimate of 17% coming from and what is it generating enough money for? And why would you even try to compare a government tax system with what the church asks for in donations? But in all fairness I’ll answer your question by saying the reason the church only asks for 10% as opposed to what the government asks for is that the church and any government are completely different organizations with completely different budget needs.

So for sounding so snarky, but I just wonder if you’re serious about these questions or if you just trying to get people going?

If the Federal Government borrows 100 billion dollars, then 100 billion dollars is now in circulation. If they pay back 100 billion, then 100 billion is taken out of circulation. Interest rates are also used to control the amount of money in circulation. HIgh interest rates are used to slow the amount and low rates are used to increase it.

Federsl taxes could be abolished and Federal Spending along with interest rates could manage the amount of money in circulation. The trick would be to continue the belief the government knows what it is doing. Taxes mask how money works.

If I gave you 100 dollars and asked you to give me something back that has a value of 100 dollars, what would you offer?

It is estimated that a flat tax would need 17% of everyones gross to generate enough money. How does the church do it with only 10%?

On the income split – If I make 100,000 and my wife makes 20,000 – what amount would we be taxed on?

Where do you get this stuff? The US government borrows money from holders of T-bills and notes. The biggest purchasers are the Social Security Trust Fund and the Chinese equivalent of the Federal Reserve, not the US Federal Reserve. That creates its own problems, but not the one you are imagining.

Taxes for the most part do not part the rich from their money. The rich need need high tax rates so tax shelters work for them which leaves the working middle class to pay the bulk of taxes.

Taxes actually do a pretty good job of separating the rich from their money. In the U.S., the richest 10% pay half of all federal taxes. See the following link for a source:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf

I think that statement is MORE true for the United States than Canada.

“The rich need need high tax rates so tax shelters work for them”

But if they didn’t have high taxes would they need shelters? To me it sounds a bit like the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” scenario. Having said that, if the rich didn’t have high taxes, would they need tax shelters?

Jeff Milner said: “I also like the graduated tax system, because (and this is probably based on nothing more than my gut feeling) it helps to keep the divide between rich and poor from getting too wide.”

Taxes for the most part do not part the rich from their money. The rich need need high tax rates so tax shelters work for them which leaves the working middle class to pay the bulk of taxes.

Income splitting is also an unfair tax place upon those who are not married while it is a fair tax for married couples by lowering their taxes leaving singles to pay a larger portion of the taxes.

It is to a government’s benefit for the majority of its citizens to be married vs single. Income splitting is a form of social engineering via the pocketbook.

The only fair tax is a tithing type of tax where everone pays the same % with no tax shelters of any kind.

I’m actually not really that frustrated by the way my* government spends money. I also like the graduated tax system, because (and this is probably based on nothing more than my gut feeling) it helps to keep the divide between rich and poor from getting too wide.

*I live in Alberta, Canada.

the amount the government spends does not add to inflation. Inflation or deflation depends upon the amount of currency available which the Federal Reserve controls.

But what you are proposing (i.e., allowing the government to add or remove the amount they need to the currency available) would take the money supply out of the hands of the Federal Reserve and give it to the Treasury Department. Every dollar the government spends would increase the money supply and devalue the currency. The resulting inflation would be just as unpleasant as any tax.

There really is no need for the US Government to collect taxes from its citizens except to give the impression that taxes pay for the Government.

The US Government controls the supply of dollars through out the world and shrinks or expands the amount available for commerence in order to control inflation. The government could simply add or remove the amount they need to the currency available without taking it from families.

The downside of course is that people would need to understand there really is nothing backing the value of a dollar (like gold or silver) and the amount the government spends does not add to inflation. Inflation or deflation depends upon the amount of currency available which the Federal Reserve controls.

Concepts like income splitting are political tidbits used to reward or punish certain income groups.

The US dollar is a fiat currency with nothing backing it.

Income splitting is an interesting ideal depending upon how it effects you. It lowers the tax for some and raises it for others.

Maybe governments should better control their outrageous spending so there wouldn’t need to be an overly heavy tax burden on the population.

Or perhaps move to a flat tax. I say 10%.