Poll: Flat Tax.

[LV Solace]

Well I've been absent for something for quite a while. But I'm back for a bit, and I figured I'd start with something relitively intelligent.

So Do to the World's current economic problems and the U.S.'s current economic clusterfuck. I figure I'd do something that I was talkign about during my economics class.

So I suggested all forms of taxes should be removed, and a single flat tax of say 5% or annual income should be placed on every citizen. No sales taxes, no property takes, just a standard tax that can in no way be avoided, without a crime being commited. No more loop holes to allow anyone to avoid paying.

That would mean a person who makes $20,000,000 every year would have to pay a million in taxes, every year. While the guy who makes $50,000 would only have to pay $2,500 each year. Thats at only a five percent rate.

I believe a 25% flat tax for 10 years would be enough to cover the United States current Debt. Or at least put a large dent in it. Witha taxing rate like that, we could infact implement the Socialist health care systems that appear to work so well everywhere else.

That brings me to a point I need answered. Why are there all these people so scared of socialism? We have socialized fire departments, police, roads, libraries. If you had to pay the cops directly to come to your house, how quickly would we fix that? If you had to pay the fire department to come and put out your burning house? Or we had to pay for every road we turned on to? Is it simply that there is billions to be made form charging for every medical need? Or are people really that idiotic, to not realise we essentially have a socialized state?

However back to the main point, A flat tax at 5% imposed on every citizen. Would it work, or even be possible?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Well I've been absent for something for quite a while. But I'm back for a bit, and I figured I'd start with something relitively intelligent.

So Do to the World's current economic problems and the U.S.'s current economic clusterfuck. I figure I'd do something that I was talkign about during my economics class.

So I suggested all forms of taxes should be removed, and a single flat tax of say 5% or annual income should be placed on every citizen. No sales taxes, no property takes, just a standard tax that can in no way be avoided, without a crime being commited. No more loop holes to allow anyone to avoid paying.

That would mean a person who makes $20,000,000 every year would have to pay a million in taxes, every year. While the guy who makes $50,000 would only have to pay $2,500 each year. Thats at only a five percent rate.

I believe a 25% flat tax for 10 years would be enough to cover the United States current Debt. Or at least put a large dent in it. Witha taxing rate like that, we could infact implement the Socialist health care systems that appear to work so well everywhere else.

That brings me to a point I need answered. Why are there all these people so scared of socialism? We have socialized fire departments, police, roads, libraries. If you had to pay the cops directly to come to your house, how quickly would we fix that? If you had to pay the fire department to come and put out your burning house? Or we had to pay for every road we turned on to? Is it simply that there is billions to be made form charging for every medical need? Or are people really that idiotic, to not realise we essentially have a socialized state?

However back to the main point, A flat tax imposed on every citizen. Would it work, or even be possible?

Well first off, 5% or 25%. You can't seem to decide on one. This sounds familiar....

EDIT: and your poll is one sided saying that no matter what we would pick, it would work.

 

[LV Solace]

I'm thinking of simply the theory of implimenting something like this. Although I know people will require numbers so Let us go with 5% as the number. I also believe I've fixed the other problem.

 

[falcontwin]

A flattax would not work. all it would do is save rich people money. Currently here in Australia income taxes range from 20% to 50% you pay the 50% rate if you earn lots of money. so in the case of the example you have stated the person who makes 20 million pays 10 million in tax and the person who makes 50 grand pays 10 grand in tax.

A flat 25% tax just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Andit would not go anywhere near paying off the countries debts let alone even paying for the government itself.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

5% is pathetic. Our debt is over a trillion if I remember right. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. That's 1,000,000,000,000. A dynamic tax system makes more sense.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Fair tax is a better deal it taxes those below the poverty line nil! look it up!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But I didn't actually answer the question. A flat tax would cut it if it was high enough.

 

[xitel]

5% is pathetic. Our debt is over a trillion if I remember right. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. That's 1,000,000,000,000. A dynamic tax system makes more sense.

It's over 8 trillion. And rising. What we need is a progressive tax. The wealthy pay 25%, the poor pay 5%, and so one in between. The more money you make, the higher your tax percentages.

 

[LV Solace]

I know, the rescent bail out set it over that if I remember correctly. And yes a dynamic tax system does make more sence. if we charge the filthy rich a greater percentage, than the dirt poor more money is made for the government.

There is simply no denying that. How ever this is weather or not a flat tax could work.

 

[blindraven]

In a basic economics class and finishing my finals next week. On the topic of a flat tax and none others whatsoever, most professors and the more advances students agreed it would have to be very high to keep up with our govt spending, something like 40% or higher, pending on who ya talked with. In theory, it would work, but actually trying to implementing such a system on the consumerism lifestyle we hold and it would be chaos.

As for the national debt, everyone has been under so far, currently over 10 trillion, here's a small website for ya to check it every now and then.(and if ya want, refresh constantly and watch it keep rising)

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Edit: debt as of Dec 5th, 6:36 GMT - $ 10,681,179,870,467.30
"The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.86 billion per day since September 28, 2007!"

little calculation, it will break 11 trillion debt in about 82.5 days

 

[Twilight_guy]

This appears to be a very divisive issue, lots of extremists so far.

I think that a flat tax would not work. The less money you have the more valuable it is. Therefor the poor need their money more then the rich since the rich will only need more money for more opulence while the poor need more money just to afford the basics. There's a reason why a flat tax is called a regressive tax after all. Therefore a flat tax is not a good idea and should not be implemented.

*edit*We don't have socialized fire, police, etc. They aren't paid by you, but they are paid. It's their job to help everyone therefor, they are just acting capitalistically and doing there jobs.
People fear socialism because they fear communisum and they don't know the difference between the two. They fear communisum because it was demonized in the the fifties and most people don't know enough about it to make an informed decision about it so they revert to old stereotypes and cultural undertones which are severely against it.
Also, Socialism doesn't work... ever. Basic human greed and laziness ruins it.

 

[Good morning blues]

A flat tax is a terrible idea because it reduces the amount that the people who are paying the most (and who have the capacity and, I would argue, the obligation to pay the most) and it increases the amount that the people who have the least amount of money have to pay. It hurts the poor and benefits the rich to a ridiculous degree. How, exactly, this is supposed to increase overall revenue, I have no idea.

 

[ffxfriek]

IT would work because the government is all about spend spend spend so we buy and boom economy crisis is over. We'd also have more money to spend as well.(or save)

 

[Rankao]

Lower Income Fair Tax, a Higher Sales Tax (everything but necessities e.g. Food )

 

[Najos]

I don't understand why we should tax the rich more anyway. They work harder and make more money; so they should pay more? How is that fair? I'm broke as fuck and I don't like it. It'd certainly piss me off if I were rich.

 

[Rankao]

Lower Income Fair Tax, a Higher Sales Tax (everything but necessities e.g. Food )

That sounds good in theory, but it actually helps the rich and hurts the middle class. The middle class spends a lot more of their money percentage wise on non-necessities than the rich, who spend a lot of their money on investments which would be taxed at that lower income fair tax.

Any tax system that treats the income you make from work--or from entrepreneurship--the same (or even worse, like in our current system) than the income you make from passive investment only encourages the further accumulation of wealth.

That seems fair. I do understand that you would spend more % of income at taxes but at the moment I see that there are way to many ways for a person who makes over 'X' amount to really not have to pay taxes (Its somewhere over 2 million a year) by collecting the income on that end (which is where we rate our health of the economy) it would prevent the rich from avoiding the tax income. Also I would be supportive of a higher range of cash back for lower income families at this range (given back on the state level because the federal level is incapable of judging) Just my two cents I know it won't happen.

Doesn't Europe have a 20% vat tax plus their income taxes anyways? Doesn't that work pretty well for them?

 

[Joos]

A flat tax would become more relatively more unfair the bigger the difference in income would be. A simplified example with a 25% tax rate.

Joe earns a reasonable salary of 50.000 USD per annum would be taxed 12.500 USD and would have 37.500 to spend on stuff.

Glen however, earns 1.000.000 USD through various sources such as salaried work, stocks and other investments. He pays 250.000 in taxes and have 750.000 to spend on stuff each year. This is a great deal more than Joe's in comparison to what you need to get by.

Then we have Rick Wagoner who earns a whopping 15.000.000 USD per year. Rick would be paying a tax of 3.750.000, an impressive amount of tax for one person.

However, he has got 11.250.000 left to spend on whatever he fancies. Now, does he really need more than 11 million dollars to make his way in society? Is this really the solidarity you should show your fellow citizens?

In a relative tax system, obscene incomes gets redistributed to where it is needed, either by the government collecting the tax, or the person earning the money uses it to invest, rather than hoarding it, to the better of the community he lives and shares with the rest of us.

 

[hypothetical fact]

I don't understand why we should tax the rich more anyway. They work harder and make more money; so they should pay more? How is that fair? I'm broke as fuck and I don't like it. It'd certainly piss me off if I were rich.

What makes you think they work harder,; they pay more because they don't need the money, this is why billionaires can afford to donate tens of millionaires for whatever they fancy.

The system while it seems to discriminate the rich would be discriminating the poor otherwise and if the poor are driven into government handouts the whole system fails.

IT would work because the government is all about spend spend spend so we buy and boom economy crisis is over. We'd also have more money to spend as well.(or save)

Does that even make sense to you? Please elaborate on your logic on how a flat tax rate will assist the government in spending when they are printing the money or consumers in buying.