Flat tax

[Maximus Zeebra]

The bible mentions several places that 1/5th ought to be taxes. Thats 20% flat tax on the poor, the rich, the companies and consumption tax(vat).

Could it work?

I think it would be the only fair way...

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

17%


yes.

 

[Tucker Case]

I'm in favor of a flat tax with absolutely no loopholes. X% is X% on all income, regardless of it's nature.

No tax breaks for anything.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think it would be the only fair way...

I do not believe there is anything even remotely fair about sales and/or consumption taxes. I oppose the much lower sales tax programs of the States... the VAT practiced in Europe is a barbaric and repressive system that has no place within civilized society.

I'm vehemently opposed to so-called "flat" taxes, but they are a damned sight better than any form of consumption tax.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I'm in favor of a flat tax with absolutely no loopholes. X% is X% on all income, regardless of it's nature.

No tax breaks for anything.

Exactly.. And best thing, the tax revenues would pretty much be the same as today if it were 1/5th on everything.

 

[KenD]

I'm not in favor of the flat tax. It seems like a great idea not to have loopholes, but it's those very loopholes that encourage reinvestment into the US economy. Without a progressive tax, government loses much of it's ability to manipulate the economy by creating conditions which are ripe for reinvestment. Some people think that's a good thing but I don't.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I'm not in favor of the flat tax. It seems like a great idea not to have loopholes, but it's those very loopholes that encourage reinvestment into the US economy. Without a progressive tax, government loses much of it's ability to manipulate the economy by creating conditions which are ripe for reinvestment. Some people think that's a good thing but I don't.

I think any economy which adopts a 20% flat tax will be more competitive than most other economies. 20% is a pretty low tax rate compared to todays levels. It would be fair also, both for rich an poor, that everyone pay the same percentage tax on their incomes, and ALL their incomes.

On the competitiveness of such a measure I find it quite shameful that nations and its people cannot be competitive in other ways and adopt to such a situation, its not about being competitive with taxes and loopholes, but the ability to be competitive where a situation of loopholes doesnt exist, that would be REAL competitiveness.

I can mention one relevant case. Italy and the Euro. The Italians have avoided economic reform and reform in general for decades before the Euro, in favor of adjusting their currency instead, reevaluating currency doesn't create new value, nor increases competitiveness, it just delays an eventual downfall. The Italian economy for example unlike ALL other members of the Euro currency have had great problems with the adoption of the new currency and the inflexibility that creates. Most other countries have handled this through reform and built around a stable currency situation, and thats the way to go forward, to reform the economy around "set terms", rather than to adjust "set terms" around the economic situation, which in the end is just a bad solution and ends up distorting the reality of the economy.

Thats just my opinion about "set terms" and "adapt around the set terms", like for example a flat tax would be.

 

[Pinu7]

Fun fact: Corporations will pay more if we have a 20% flat tax.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Fun fact: Corporations will pay more if we have a 20% flat tax.

That would be a good thing, them taking more of the burden. Its after all there the money lays.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Fun fact: Corporations will pay more if we have a 20% flat tax.

That would be a good thing, them taking more of the burden. Its after all there the money lays.

Corporations do not pay taxes, because they are not people. Any so-called "corporate tax" is really a tax on one of two groups of people: shareholders or customers.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Corporations do not pay taxes, because they are not people. Any so-called "corporate tax" is really a tax on one of two groups of people: shareholders or customers.

Perhaps profit tax is a good thing, but prone to exploitation, anyways it could end up good with companies re-investing more to avoid profit taxes, thats good. But thats what they pay now anyhow.

Shareholders would simply pay taxes on their income from companies like any other income tax.

A switch from profits to income tax on companies could be quite difficult but would be the optimal solution. After all, people don't pay taxes after expenses, they pay them before expenses, same SHOULD apply to corporations. Perhaps a split, 10% on income and 10% of profits could be possible? But in all fairness it should be income tax.

Looking at the list of top 200 companies by revenue worldwide the first company that has a profit margin compared to revenue that is able to afford taxation on income rather than profit is Johnsen & Johnsen in 112th place. About 5% of the total that I got a quick overview of in the top 200 would be able to afford tax of 20% on income rather than profits. Meaning it would be near impossible to have them adjust their businesses so much that they could afford it. But it is possible, margins on 50% of those businesses in a case of revenue tax are small and businesses waste a lot of money in inefficiency.

:thinking

Dammit, it have to be profit tax then.

 

[KenD]

I think any economy which adopts a 20% flat tax will be more competitive than most other economies. 20% is a pretty low tax rate compared to todays levels. It would be fair also, both for rich an poor, that everyone pay the same percentage tax on their incomes, and ALL their incomes.

I haven't seen anything yet which convinces me that the flat tax will create a more competitive economy. I can't be in favor of trying it out just to see how it works, either. The shift would be too drastic to reverse it if it created another economic tailspin.

And even if it did create a more competitive economy, there will be downturns which have the potential to spiral out of control if there is no way, using taxation, to tamp the breaks. I'm not convinced that other measures work.

Finally, and this is the biggest issue to me, A flat tax gives no incentive for people to reinvest in the US economy (there is little enough now). When the money flows overseas (and overseas investments typically have a greater return), it flows out of the US economy. This makes the economy less, not more, competitive.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Finally, and this is the biggest issue to me, A flat tax gives no incentive for people to reinvest in the US economy (there is little enough now). When the money flows overseas (and overseas investments typically have a greater return), it flows out of the US economy. This makes the economy less, not more, competitive.

This is the problems, as with Italy. The US tries to adopt the "terms" around a faltering economy, rather than "set permanent" terms for the economy to revolve and adapt around, this is a huge problem in modern economics.
Say the flat tax is set. To then be more competitive the US would have to come up with other ways to become more competitive, rather than just adjust the terms.

This is why I am for a flat tax, a flat interest rate and a single currency for all of Europe for example. Then the economies have no excuses anymore, they actually have to develop, rather than develop these things to adjust to an economy which is going up or down, and by it make it look like the economy is always going up, even if its going down.

Get what I am saying? Get the essence of it? I cant really explain it in a better way than that.

 

[PaulWolfowitz]

I couldn't really support a flat tax. The way I see it, if you make a lot of money then you probably have much more disposable income than someone who makes less money. Therefore, people who have a large salary that lands them in a higher tax bracket will, in most cases, be capable of paying a higher tax rate. I'm really not that liberal and I hate to sound like Robin Hood (taking from the rich to give to the poor), but this is one thing I do feel strongly about. Especially considering that our middle class is comparable to the upper class of most countries. Lots of people in America have plenty of money while the lower classes get the shaft because we like to ignore the poverty that exists in our own cities.

 

[Kushinator]

Correct me if i am wrong, but when someone with a higher income has more disposable income, they have a much higher marginal propensity to save. With that in mind, where would these assets exist? In bank CD's, stocks, transactional accounts, savings accounts, etc.... This is a much overlooked alternative to federal intervention of the Federal Funds Rate via open market operations, or capital infusion in return for equities via the federal government.

Suffice to say, people having more of their own money allows for greater private sector growth. LOL, and we all know what type of growth leads to a higher standard of living:2wave:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I couldn't really support a flat tax. The way I see it, if you make a lot of money then you probably have much more disposable income than someone who makes less money. Therefore, people who have a large salary that lands them in a higher tax bracket will, in most cases, be capable of paying a higher tax rate. I'm really not that liberal and I hate to sound like Robin Hood (taking from the rich to give to the poor), but this is one thing I do feel strongly about. Especially considering that our middle class is comparable to the upper class of most countries. Lots of people in America have plenty of money while the lower classes get the shaft because we like to ignore the poverty that exists in our own cities.

If someone makes more money he do pay more taxes, thats the fine thing about percentage. But why in the world is it fair that he should pay a higher percentage?
If you have taxes on consumption(VAT) at 20% as well with exception on perhaps food, that would hit the rich the most since they buy most stuff.

 

[Jessica]

The bible mentions several places that 1/5th ought to be taxes. Thats 20% flat tax on the poor, the rich, the companies and consumption tax(vat).

Could it work?

I think it would be the only fair way...

The Bible also says to obey the laws of the land, and income tax is not legal here.

A tithe is also 10%.

You would have to direct me to any Biblical passages saying a fair tax is 20%, as I am not familiar at all with this. The most familiar I am with the Bible and taxes is such that Jesus told his followers that if tax collectors wanted tax, then give it to him, since it's his money and has his picture on it, etc.

 

[Iriemon]

Correct me if i am wrong, but when someone with a higher income has more disposable income, they have a much higher marginal propensity to save. With that in mind, where would these assets exist? In bank CD's, stocks, transactional accounts, savings accounts, etc.... This is a much overlooked alternative to federal intervention of the Federal Funds Rate via open market operations, or capital infusion in return for equities via the federal government.

Suffice to say, people having more of their own money allows for greater private sector growth. LOL, and we all know what type of growth leads to a higher standard of living:2wave:

Then why has the economy been so stinko since taxes were cut earlier this decade?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The Bible also says to obey the laws of the land, and income tax is not legal here.

A tithe is also 10%.

You would have to direct me to any Biblical passages saying a fair tax is 20%, as I am not familiar at all with this. The most familiar I am with the Bible and taxes is such that Jesus told his followers that if tax collectors wanted tax, then give it to him, since it's his money and has his picture on it, etc.

I am referring to the OLD testament.. 1/5th is mentioned many places.

I dont like the new testament, Jesus was a con man who ruined everything we learnt from the old testament.. I would be surprised at all if he told people to give him money, of course not directly, but indirectly like the SOB he was.

 

[Jessica]

Then why has the economy been so stinko since taxes were cut earlier this decade?

Margin calls.

 

[Iriemon]

Margin calls.

I heard they had those before the tax cuts too.

 

[Kushinator]

Then why has the economy been so stinko since taxes were cut earlier this decade?

Asset bubble extraordinaire...

The 90's had the technology innovation that led to greater productivity which led to higher standard of living.

BTW, tax cuts do not equal a good economy all by themselves. One can even argue that without the tax cuts, the asset bubble would have hit much earlier and lasted much longer.

 

[Iriemon]

Asset bubble extraordinaire...

The 90's had the technology innovation that led to greater productivity which led to higher standard of living.

BTW, tax cuts do not equal a good economy all by themselves. One can even argue that without the tax cuts, the asset bubble would have hit much earlier and lasted much longer.

The real estate asset bubble was just as extraordinaire as the stock one.

One could argue more persuasively based on decades of tax policy changes that the tax cuts had no effect on the economy except to contribute to trillions in debt. Which leaves it not so suffice to say.

 

[Kushinator]

I heard they had those before the tax cuts too.

Although it is true that the higher amount of margin calls or actual losses are a result of higher quantities of investment, it is not as simplistic as "free markets are unstable."

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Although it is true that the higher amount of margin calls or actual losses are a result of higher quantities of investment, it is not as simplistic as "free markets are unstable."

They are in most countries. We could stabilize this by "set terms", permanent fix the interest rates, the taxes and so on for the economy to build around stable conditions rather than fluctuating ones.
According to the bible, lending money with interest rates isn't legal/moral. Having a 0% interest rate would sure take away the property market bubble, and loans based on profits rather than need.