Poll: Flat Tax.

[ffxfriek]

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.

sorry i mean like the government wants us to buy buy buy. so we have MORE money to spend fir useless goods to make the economy better and were doing what the government wants which is to spend

 

[Pseudonym2]

According to Fuzzy Math: The Essential Guide to the Bush Tax Plan by Paul Krugman, if you take the average income of the bottom 90% percent of America and put it on a graph and make it one inch tall the top 90% would be over 65 feet tall. Let's say the average of the bottom 90% had to build a tower with a lego block representing a thousand dollars, the tower would be about 3 feet tall. For the top 10%, the tower would be taller than the Eiffel tower.


The income disparity got even worse after Regan repealed the dynamic taxes.

(I think it was this book and those were the statistics, it was a long time since I read it.)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Also, Socialism doesn't work... ever. Basic human greed and laziness ruins it.

Same could be said of any system though, just look at the current situation we have under capitalism. Nothing really *works* perfectly and nothing ever will. Humans are incredibly stupid, lazy, ignorant, short-sighted, greedy and intolerant creatures, and I find these some of their more charming traits. A *perfect* society would be like an ant colony or a bee-hive, each individual unit working to its fullest, ensuring the hive is successful and never goes hungry. But where is the individualism in that? Where are the ants who say "fuck you!" to their bosses and refuse to wear ties to work?

That said, a kind of... loose socialism I believe is the best way to go. Make society fair, but don't have it too fair. Make sure poor people, sick people, and unemployed people are aided and not made to go hungry (without being stigmatised). But keep the flexibility and individualism that capitalism brings. Let people pat themselves on the back for earning millions and being greedy assholes.

 

[rossatdi]

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

Doesn't mater if its possible its stupid. I'm sorry to sound over glib on this but I've heard people kicking around the idea and its very stupid.

Basically in any country there is a minimum amount of money to have a nice comfortable life. A varied tax rate means that those people who all ready have this pay more and those who aren't there yet get things a little easier. An oversimplification but it does the job.

That an the the solution to debt isn't taxes, that just makes people even more skint and in need of loans!

 

[Anton P. Nym]

A flat tax either pounds the poor even further into the dirt or it starves the government of funds until it can no longer function.

Poor people spend far greater proportion of their income than the rich; this isn't because the poor are bad at budgeting, it's because the bare essentials of food, rent/mortgage, utilities, etc. eat farther into a low wage than into a high wage. It's the difference between "income" and "disposable income"; disposable income is what you have left after paying for survival. Disposable income is what you spend on things like college for your kids, or fripperies like big-screen TVs if you're so inclined.

A graduated income tax does a better job of reflecting the idea of disposable income than a flat tax.

As to the idealist claiming that rich people work harder... well, some do. Others, however, are just leeching off of trust funds or Daddy's hard work. Wealth does not confer or reflect worthiness, anymore than poverty confers or reflects merit.

-- Steve

 

[orifice]

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

And drive millions into poverty and starvation. Even I don't agree with flat taxes and I'm one of the most right wing people on this forum.

 

[Chilango2]

Flat tax FTW!

Or even better, no tax and goverment at all, but thats an utopia.
But maybe one day...
I keep on dreaming.

Dreaming of a nightmarish anarchy wherein your rights, property and life and subject to the whims of the nearest gang of strongmen with guns? Huh.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Flat tax FTW!

Or even better, no tax and goverment at all, but thats an utopia.
But maybe one day...
I keep on dreaming.

Dreaming of a nightmarish anarchy wherein your rights, property and life and subject to the whims of the nearest gang of strongmen with guns? Huh.

Reminds me of my visit to Alabama...

 

[mokes310]

No, a progressive taxation system needs to be in place. Over the past eight years in the United States, we've moved away from that, for people making over $250,000, and especially for corporations. Proper taxation requires a deeper knowledge of ones populus, something Democrats seem more in tune with.

 

[karmapolizei]

Flat tax FTW!

Or even better, no tax and goverment at all, but thats an utopia.
But maybe one day...
I keep on dreaming.

Dreaming of a nightmarish anarchy wherein your rights, property and life and subject to the whims of the nearest gang of strongmen with guns? Huh.

I guess the utopia is not NEEDING a government to prevent a nighmarish anarchy. But in any foreseeable future, that's not very likely to happen. Nevertheless, it would be nice, right?
I think that's all Chilago wanted to say, and me too.

Back to topic: A flat tax would never work. Never ever. That's because a) it would rip the government off a great deal of its tax revenue, which is bad for infrastructure, education and a whole lot of other things (that is, pretty much bad for anyone else. And don't even think about privatization, because this doesn't work either in just about any case where public needs are concerned) As a matter of fact, in most industrialized countries, roughly 80-90% of all taxes are paid by the richest 10%.

And b), as many have pointed out already, it rips off the poor in favour of the rich. More precisely, it makes the poor starve, the midde class poor and the rich richer. In short, it's the easiest way back into the 19th century, and seriously, who could want that?

 

[Uskis]

I'm for a dynamic tax as well.. The strongest shoulders carries the heaviest loads

 

[Saskwach]

A flat tax either pounds the poor even further into the dirt or it starves the government of funds until it can no longer function.

This sentence tells you 90% of what you need to know about flat tax. But since I hate being a yes man I'll add some text. Say we applied flat tax to the US (we all understand America to some degree). There are three broad options about where to set the tax rate relative to current rates: lower than the lowest level; higher than the highest; and somewhere in between.
If you chose the first answer, I applaud you in principle; but hope you're an economic and governmental genius coz you need to make a fraction of the money do a shitload more than it used to under the previous system. I'm assuming you chose this option because you believe that a paycheck is the right of the earner to spend as much as is possible while still keeping government running properly. While I'd be the first to put the ax to most developed nations' budgets (which isn't to say I don't think they're also underspending in some areas) I'd still be surprised to see any government function on 10% [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2009_Income_Brackets_and_Tax_Rates] of everybody's wages.
If you choose door number 3 (>35%) I'd say you haven't read the paragraph above and deserve to be slapped.
If you chose the second option, we might be cooking with gas. The next dilemma is one of balance: how much extra will you tax the bottom for the sake of fairness and how much of the, IIRC, 85% of all taxes that the rich 50% of America pay are you willing to surrender - also in the name of fairness? You can't win both battles if you want a flat rate: tax the bottom more or surrender the vast majority of government funds.
Personally, while I prefer low taxes on principle (not much over a third of every dollar IMO, though I'll compromise some way if those extra cents are really getting a good workout) I think flat taxes is looking at the issue from the wrong way around; most countries could lower taxes for everybody if only they were viciously honest in cutting the cruft of their current system. Pork-barreling; massive subsidies to prop up industries that could pay for themselves if their worst practices - and practitioners - were just allowed to die naturally as the market demands; misguided social engineering that just doesn't do what it says on the box - if these were all cut by government it could turn right around and tell its taxpayers that they'll be taxed less and get better value for money, and without the extra burden on the poor or a starvation diet for government. By definition, a government with the balls and power to push through a gorramn flat tax should have the same ability to do the above.

PS: Am I the only one who, when very young, thought the Taxpayer was a single man who funded everything? At that age few kids would have known the difference between "taxpayers' " and "taxpayer's", and all I ever heard on the radio was "that's coming right out of the Taxpayer's pocket" and other sloppy terms that conflated singular and plural. I imagined a jolly old man in a nice suit whose wealth was surpassed only by his passion for philanthropy.

 

[beddo]

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?

It would be possible, it just wouldn't generate anywhere near enough revenue to run the current system of Government.

Collection would be simplified and hence costs too. However, it would need to be in the region of 35% to sustain decent spending levels and more like 70%+ to sustain current US government spending levels(without getting into further debt). Would you tax businesses on the same rate, I'm assuming yes as you didn't address it directly.

Keep in mind though, tax evasion is everywhere. Also, how would you respond with respect to tax on imports and exports, you need to keep the economy competitive based on your import/export demands.

 

[Chilango2]

I guess the utopia is not NEEDING a government to prevent a nighmarish anarchy. But in any foreseeable future, that's not very likely to happen. Nevertheless, it would be nice, right?
I think that's all Chilago wanted to say, and me too.

That is, indeed, precisly what I meant.

It's not even a question of 'any foreseeable future', its a question of human nature. So long as the human race is fallable, has a capacity for violence, and has a capacity for greed, it will be the case, and this is a good way of saying 'forever'.

Government, among other things, exists precisly to make us *more* free from the tyranny of the most violent among us, or from the tyranny of our local community, if we happened to be the kind of person they don't like.

And of course, humans aren't perfect individuated atomistic Randian individuals, we're social pack animals, we will *always* have communities, and therefore the tragedy of the commons, and that is another function of government.. to invest for, create, and plan things we as a *community* need.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

*Digs up Ayn Rands corpse, sets it on fire, douses the ashes in acid and flushes down the public toilet in North Kensington.*

I have an intense dislike for economic theories that don't work. Circa: The Great Deppression, the 1890s, AND cause misery and suffering AND corrupt the otherwise excellent works of Mr Terry Goodkind into nothing more than a political diatrabe against socialism....Oscar Wilde was socialist.

Oscar Wilde vs. Ayn Rand. Who will win?

 

[lameofdog]

I'm not sure where you some of you are getting your figures on how high a flat tax would have to be in order to sustain government spending. Your average middle class United States American provides the majority of the U.S.'s money. The trouble is less in which tax system you use ( Flat, Progressive, Fair ) and more getting everyone paying their taxes. The U.S. upper class has too many ways to escape their taxes. They've spent the last 10-20 years exploiting every loop hole in the current tax system, and are now asking to be bailed with tax money they have never contributed to.

I flat tax system on income could work and it doesn't need to be outrages. 20% would well if you didn't give anyone or anyone company a way to weasel out of it. 20% would be more than some corporate CEOs have paid in their whole life. How is it the Third richest man in the world pays less in taxes than his secretary? ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece ) And he doesn't even try to weasel out of his taxes.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

There is no denying that a flat tax could work under the right circumstances. In the same way, there is no denying that I could reach my history class by circling the globe in the opposite direction, finally arriving at my destination. Sure it could work, but why would you put yourself through that?

 

[Chilango2]

I'm not sure where you some of you are getting your figures on how high a flat tax would have to be in order to sustain government spending. Your average middle class United States American provides the majority of the U.S.'s money. The trouble is less in which tax system you use ( Flat, Progressive, Fair ) and more getting everyone paying their taxes. The U.S. upper class has too many ways to escape their taxes. They've spent the last 10-20 years exploiting every loop hole in the current tax system, and are now asking to be bailed with tax money they have never contributed to.

This is not an argument for flat taxes, but rather an agrument for why the progressive taxation system in the United States needs to be adjusted and tax loopholes eliminated.

Insofar as 'where these numbers come from'. Any reputable study of how a flat tax would work finds that 30% would be a minimum. You also have yet to deal with the more fundamental economic injustice.

In purchasing terms, 20% of a middle class or poor person's income is a greater economic burden to them than 20% of a rich person's income.